Collaboration Consequences: New Public Management and Police-Academic Partnerships
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
With increasing pressure on public organizations to demonstrate accountability, police services and public universities are being tasked with demonstrating how their institutional strategies are effective and economically efficient. In this paper, we draw on our own research collaborations with two different Canadian police services (Bluewater and Greenfield) on a similar community crime prevention strategy, Situation Tables. We illustrate how new public management practices are embedded in the political, economic, and organizational contexts that have inspired police-academic partnerships and invigorated the evidence-based policing movement in Canada. Our analysis illustrates how our partnerships were influenced by the performance strand of new public management that prioritizes the quantification of measures of outputs over qualitative evaluations of impact. We argue that these practices, if not interrogated, can jeopardize the integrity of evidence-based practice and policy development. Academic freedom must be retained when partnering with the police to ensure an examination of the implications of police practices.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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