The reality of partnership: formal collaborations between law enforcement and community corrections agencies in Pennsylvania
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
As is the case in the UK, formal police–community corrections partnerships in the US have existed since the 1990s. However, unlike the UK where parliamentary developments and subsequent policy initiatives have provided a context in which criminal justice agencies formally work together, police–probation/parole partnerships in the US have experienced relatively little formalisation, with most extant partnerships existing informally based principally on interpersonal relations between individual police and corrections agency members. Relevant to research in the UK [Mawby, R.C., Crawley, P., and Wright, A., 2007. Beyond ‘polibation’ and towards ‘prisi-polibation’? Joint agency offender management in the context of the street crime initiative. International journal of police science & management, 9 (2), 122–134; Mawby, R.C. and Worrall, A., 2004. ‘Polibation’ revisited: policing, probation and prolific offender projects. International journal of police science and management, 6 (2), 63–73; Mawby, R.C. and Worrall, A., 2011. ‘They were very threatening about do-gooding bastards’: probation’s changing relationships with the police and prison services in England and Wales. European journal of probation, 3 (3), 78–94; Nash, M., 2008. Exit the polibation officer? Decoupling police and probation. International journal of police science and management, 10 (3), 302–312; Nash, M. and Walker, L., 2009. MAPPA – is closer collaboration really the key to effectiveness? Policing, 3 (2), 172–180; Wood, J. and Kemshall, H., 2007. The operation and experience of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). London: Home Office], the current study explores the patterns and characteristics of formal partnerships and the perceptions of police chiefs and probation/parole chiefs in a US state concerning experiences with partnering agencies, benefits, and problems. Findings are compared with research findings in the UK and Canada.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 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 it