MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145389972 · doi:10.5334/sta.ek

External Police Oversight in Mexico: Experiences, Challenges, and Lessons Learned

2014· article· en· W2145389972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStability International Journal of Security and Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityTransparency (behavior)BureaucracyFrontierPolitical sciencePublic administrationContext (archaeology)PoliticsInstitutionDemocracyPublic relationsLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After nearly 20 years of ‘reformist’ measures, the police in Mexico continues to be an ineffective, unreliable, and ‘far from citizen’ institution. The efforts made so far have faded amongst political interests and agendas; multidimensional frameworks out-dated at both conceptual and interagency levels; short-sighted competition for resources; evaluation and performance monitors that are handicapped by bureaucratic inaction; and weak transparency and accountability that perpetuate the opacity in which the police operate. In this context, the agenda of external police oversight is still at a rudimentary stage. However, there are several initiatives that have managed to push the issue to the frontier of new knowledge and promising practices. This paper outlines the experiences and challenges of—as well as the lessons learned by—the Institute for Security and Democracy (Insyde) A.C., one of the most recognised think tanks in Mexico.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it