Bibliographic record
Abstract
De nos jours, la police a déjà subi et continue de subir des changements dans sa philosophie et sa pratique fondamentales. Des zones de contrôle social auparavant laissées dans L'ombre par la police sont maintenant regroupées sous L'expression « police communautaire «. Le contrôle de la prostitution, bien qu'il soit traditionnellement axé sur les travailleuses du sexe, a récemment été ramené sous le parapluie de la police communautaire par le biais de méthodes parti‐culières. Cet article examine la police de quartier et son rôle élargi en prenant pour exemple les « John schools » ou programmes de traitement pour les clients de prostituées. Ces programmes, en tant que police communautaire en pratique, mettent en relief les difficultés de cette approche en général et, plus particulièrement, celles de la prostitution. Policing today has gone through and continues to undergo changes in its basic philosophy and practice. Areas of social control previously ignored by police are now included under the rhetoric of “community policing.” Control of prostitution activity, although an historical mainstay of policing directed primarily at female sex workers, has recently been subsumed under the umbrella of community policing through particular methods aimed at its control. This paper examines community policing and the expanded police role through the example of “John schools” or prostitution offender programs. As community policing in practice, such prostitution offender programs highlight the difficulties of the community policing approach generally, and the policing perspective on prostitution more specifically.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".