Intelligence-Led Policing in Practice: Reflections From Intelligence Analysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is a managerial law enforcement model that seeks to place crime intelligence at the forefront of decision-making. This model has been widely adopted, at least notionally, in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Drawing on interviews with intelligence analysts from two Australian state law enforcement agencies, this article contributes to the relatively small body of literature that has examined ILP in practice. The article identifies three relational themes that inhibit the successful implementation of ILP: analysts and data, analysts and tools, and analysts and decision makers. Furthermore, it calls attention to the need to better understand the structure and operations within law enforcement agencies, including the similarities and differences among organizational units, in order to better understand how these nuances shape the practice of ILP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".