Is partnership working? Complexities and barriers in the development of community safety practice in Wales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Community safety in England and Wales underwent significant change a quarter of a century ago when community safety partnerships (CSPs) were introduced as part of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Measures to reduce or prevent anti-social behaviour and crime became the responsibility of not just the police but multiple public and third-sector organisations working in partnership. In Wales, additional complexity exists due to most CSP partners operating and working under both the UK, and Welsh Government remit. Findings from mixed-methods research into the training needs of community safety professionals in Wales revealed that support was needed in several areas of practice, including the practicing of meaningful ‘partnership’ working and problem solving. However, given the complex partnership landscape in Wales and lack of clarity around partnership governance, coupled with a seeming overreliance on the police and local government within community safety, the success of collaborative learning and development plans is limited.
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 | 0.036 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".