Résistance au changement de l’institution policière et criminalité évolutive : un paradoxe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La police aux prises à des résistances aux changements au sein de son institution est-elle en capacité de faire face à l’évolution de la criminalité ? À travers les réformes les plus récentes de la police et notamment la police communautaire, les auteurs tracent le portrait d’une institution qui doit faire face à deux situations opposées et paradoxales. D’un côté des tentatives de réformes pour répondre aux exigences de sécurité des citoyens ; de l’autre, un corps professionnel rétif aux changements qui doit lutter contre une criminalité adaptative. Dans cet article il s’agira de ressortir un modèle conceptuel pour intégrer le changement et la résistance au changement de l’institution policière. Ainsi, la police n’a d’autres choix que de changer la culture organisationnelle et surmonter les résistances par la formation, les critères d’embauche, l’évaluation du rendement et la promotion. Mais au final, les auteurs tendent à montrer que ce qui doit changer, au fond, ce n’est pas tant les discours que les actions et les mentalités.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Analysis of resistance to change in the police as an institution; organizational sociology of policing, not of research.
It analyzes police institutional change and crime rather than research itself.
Criminology analysis of police institutional resistance to reform, not science or research systems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".