Plural policing, the public good, and the constitutional state: an international comparison of Austria and Canada – Ontario
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
For the past two or three decades many jurisdictions have experienced a pluralisation of policing. In addition to the regular public police, in most countries new providers have become involved in policing public and semi-public places. This paper deals with the differences in the ways that plural policing and its consequences are defined and assessed in different countries. The paper focuses on two countries that differ considerably in the impact of neoliberalism, Austria and Canada – Ontario. In these countries different discourses are used to assess plural policing and its potential negative impact. In Canada the public good is the central concept in discussions of plural policing. This often refers to instrumental goals such as value for money and service delivery to consumers. In Austria plural policing is generally discussed in terms of the tasks and position of the state, the monopoly of violence, and by referring to constitutional and fundamental legal perspectives. This study shows that international comparative research on (plural) policing cannot be based on the tacit assumption that central concepts such as public good have universal relevance. On the contrary, these normative concepts are highly context dependent, an important conclusion for future international comparative research on policing and security.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it