TROPA DE CHOQUE E POLÍCIA COMUNITÁRIA: CASAMENTO POSSÍVEL?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: O texto apresenta de forma sucinta os elementos e estratégias gerais que caracterizam o policiamento de proximidade. A partir dessa breve revisão com ênfase na doutrina da Polícia Militar de Minas Gerais, é evidenciada a possibilidade de se adotar os princípios do policiamento comunitário em um campo onde atualmente se predomina as estratégias reativas de polícia: tropa de choque. Para demonstrar a validade dessa argumentação, são apresentadas práticas adotadas pela polícia em Belo Horizonte e em Vancouver, Canadá. Palavras-chave: Polícia de Proximidade; Policiamento Comunitário; Tropa de Choque. Abstract: The text summarily points elements and general aspects that characterize community policing. From this brief review, which emphasizes the doctrine of the Minas Gerais Police, it is evidenced the possibility of adopting the principles of community policing in a field where currently predominates reactive police strategies: riot police. To demonstrate the validity of these arguments, some practices used by police in Belo Horizonte and in Vancouver, Canada, are showed. Key words: Proximity approach; Community Policing; Riot Police.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 it