Bibliographic record
Abstract
While conducting doctoral research on international undercover operations, the author attended undercover training courses in the United States (US) and in Canada. He also conducted interviews with undercover operatives and those that supervise undercover operations with several agencies in the US, Canada, United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands. During the course of this research the author was privy to sophisticated and contemporary undercover training and recruitment methodologies. While the author is available to provide advice to law enforcement agencies on undercover management and training, the author is cognisant of the detrimental effect of disclosing policing methodologies to those external to law enforcement who may hold less than desirable motives. As such, this article is focused upon shedding some light upon the legal ‘grey’ area that exists between the right to silence and police undercover investigations, from information available in the public domain. However, when researching material for this article, the author was both surprised and alarmed at the quantity and accuracy of publicly available information on undercover policing methodologies.1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".