Police systems, perspectives and contested paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a range of policing systems in various societies and it is useful to clarify briefly what formed them, what they look like and how they differ (Mawby, 1999). For there is a tendency, which many follow, to ignore history and to generalise sweepingly about policing. The systems do have universal elements that cross cultures, but we should remain conscious of the dissimilarities and bear in mind system and cultural differences. Police research has been conducted predominately in the English-speaking world and often to the neglect of material in other languages which could provide access to a rich variety of systems (Hoogenboom and Punch, 2012). Brodeur (2010), for example, was a French Canadian whose work fruitfully draws on sources in French, both historical and modern, which he employs to chart the differences between the two dominant ‘French-Continental’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’ criminal justice systems. Students of policing can be much aided by his insightful work. Also it remains the case that, despite change, police systems often continue to display genetic features reflecting their society's history and culture. Therefore, this chapter takes a closer at different police systems and deals with the important distinction made by Brodeur (1983, 2010) between what he calls ‘low’ and ‘high’ policing and his insights on ‘militarised’ policing. The chapter then examines the concept of policing paradigms as well as paradigm change in the UK and the Netherlands. Police systems It is possible to discern five main types of police systems or policing styles in existence since the start of ‘modern’ policing some two centuries ago. First, the French – or ‘Continental’ – model can be traced to the 17th century. In France, high-level magistrates working on behalf of the absolute monarch were tasked with a broad form of ‘government’ in regulating matters to protect the monarchy and ensure order in the cities where there was a continual threat of disturbances. The term ‘police’ was not then used and the broad concept of government was not at all like the modern notion of police; rather, it was an all-encompassing mandate utilising in practice a combination of central surveillance by spies and informers and of urban order maintenance by military-style units (Brodeur, 2010). There later evolved in France a system of local and national policing agencies falling under diverse ministries and with a national, centrally led gendarmerie for maintaining state control that was formally part of the military.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".