Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study analyses the operation and culture of Thai policing and the intersection between policing and politics framed by the recommendations of the Police Reform Committee (PRC), 2006—2007. The PRC’s priorities were: devolving police administration, especially budgets and personnel management; increasing accountability, especially establishing an Independent Complaints’ Committee; and civilianization. Those priorities were seen as clearing the ground for development of community-oriented policing longer-term. Interviews were conducted with senior members of the PRC. Afterwards non-commissioned officers’ opinions were established through a countrywide survey and follow-up in-depth interviews. Their station chiefs were also interviewed. According to PRC members and serving officers’ accounts the barriers to reform of police administration were political interference and nepotism, especially corruption of appointments, nominations, promotions and transfers. Local policing often involved further interference by informal networks of officials, politicians and business. The PRC’s recommendations were shelved due to an unfavourable political climate. The paradox was the PRC’s strategies for ‘democratic’ police reform were well-informed and well-founded but its establishment had been politically motivated and it was not immune to interference by competing political factions. The study contributes to debates about moving away from authoritarian policing models in the developing world by analysing barriers to the reform of police administration in the Thai context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".