Bibliographic record
Abstract
Évaluer une politique publique par la comparaison, c’est porter sur elle un regard nouveau, éclairé par la connaissance d’une politique analogue, menée sous d’autres cieux. C’est l’interroger différemment, remettre en question l’évidence. L’article analyse les politiques locales de sécurité françaises (contrats locaux de sécurité et police de proximité) à la lumière du «community policing» tel qu’il est mis en oeuvre à Chicago 1 . Deux différences apparaissent, entre des démarches sur d’autres points analogues de «coproduction de sécurité». À la différence de la relation forte entre police et habitats qu’instaure le programme de Chicago, le partenariat français est un partenariat interinstitutionnel, qui ne ménage pas de véritable place à la population. D’autre part, ce que produit ce partenariat se caractérise par un rapport vertical institutions-habitants, où la proximité, la protection, la pédagogie sont plus centrales qu’une démarche collective de «problem solving» pouvant prendre des aspects de répression accentuée.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".