Accountable, Responsive and Independent: On the Need for Balance in Police Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the relevance of police independence in light of developments in police accountability mechanisms in the UK that encourage the police to be more locally responsive. It presents an argument concerning the need for balance in police governance between competing claims and interests. The paper notes the danger of exaggerated forms of accountability arising as a consequence of the inherent tensions within police governance, if the importance of a particular concern is overstated inappropriately at the expense of others. The current focus on being responsive at the expense of recognising the importance of police independence is presented as an example of such a danger. The paper acknowledges the extent to which traditional arguments in support of police independence have been criticised and accepts the need for the police to work interdependently with other bodies within the community. However, it is argued that this should not be interpreted to mean that police independence is redundant. Indeed, it is argued here that the more responsive the police are, the more important their independence becomes.
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 | 0.032 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".