Conclusions and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of governments around the world have recognised the need to think afresh about the provision and regulation of contemporary policing, notably with regard to the visible patrol function and relations between the diverse public, municipal and private providers. Recent government-sponsored reviews in the US, Canada and, to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland (Patten, 1999; Bayley and Shearing, 2001; Law Commission of Canada, 2002) have sought to encompass a broader understanding of policing, incorporating the activities of those beyond the police. Traditionally, in England and Wales, this debate has tended to be restricted to the activities and regulation of the police and hence to ‘police reform’. Now is an appropriate time for a considered review of the nature, contribution and social implications of visible policing both within and beyond the police, one that takes stock of recent ad hoc developments and incorporates a concern for public safety in its widest sense. For too long, governments have thought of solutions to public anxieties in narrow terms of police and criminal justice reform and police officer numbers. It is no longer realistic to think of policing in terms of public police forces alone. There is now an urgent need to open up this debate to embrace a holistic understanding of policing. The contemporary challenge is to harness the diverse efforts of plural policing providers and auspices in the furtherance of public safety, without allowing the vagaries of unequal access and differentiated provision – fuelled by security as a commodity – in a weakly regulated market to segregate populations further along lines demarcated by their capacity to purchase additional security or retreat from the public sphere.
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 | 0.016 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.242 | 0.075 |
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".