MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389680355 · doi:10.1556/112.2023.00154

Az állami és nem állami szereplők újragondolt szerepe a biztonság megteremtésében és fenntartásában.

2023· article· hu· W4389680355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zsolt Lippai

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia et Securitas · 2023
Typearticle
Languagehu
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHungarian Social, Economic and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaw enforcementEnforcementState (computer science)Political scienceLawState securityHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Összefoglalás. A KDP keretén belül végzett kutatómunkám fókuszában a biztonság megteremtése és fenntartása állami és nem állami szereplői tevékenységének jelenkori állapotanalízise, a komplementer rendészeti szereplők rendészeti szerveket tehermentesítő, nemzetgazdasági szempontból is meghatározó jelentőségű vizsgálata áll. Jelen tanulmányomban az ezzel megegyező tartalmú PhD-kutatásom eredményeiről számolok be, kutatási jelentés formájában. Summary. The focus of my research within the framework of the KDP is the analysis of the current state of the activities of state and non-state actors in the creation and maintenance of security, and the analysis of the role of complementary law enforcement actors in relieving the burden on law enforcement agencies, which is of crucial importance from a national economic point of view. In this paper I report the results of my PhD research with the same content in the form of a research report. I will point out that law enforcement, and thus the state actors in the creation of our security, and in particular the activities of the police, have been and are being dealt with in many different ways. However, only a small number of police researchers have focused their attention on non-state actors in the field of security, on the specialised bodies and ‘peripheries’ of policing, and on the use of methods other than those that might be called traditional policing. The joint work of state and non-state actors, the complementary and mutually reinforcing role of the police in creating and maintaining our common security, and the possibility of rethinking the respective roles are also areas that have been little researched. My PhD research seeks to fill this gap, bearing in mind the fact that law enforcement practitioners expect the Doctoral School of Police Studies to provide recommendations for applied research that can be used in everyday practice. In my gap-filling research, I will explore my research questions and hypotheses in an unconventional way by drawing on what I consider to be relevant, almost half a thousand domestic and foreign source materials, personal interviews, study trips and the experience of an expert survey. I will reflect on the significance of private security research and then move back in time to examine the development of the concept of policing over time. I will juxtapose key ideas from works that are perhaps little known to many, but which are still of great scientific value today. In a comparative analysis of state and non-state actors in the field of security, I will present the actors of complementary policing, the ‘stepchildren of policing’, and I will focus on the experience of the domestic organisation of a major sporting event, EURO2020, which attracts large crowds. Internationally, I will look at the development of the public and private security sectors in Estonia, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, Bulgaria, England and Canada, and the activities of private military companies. On the basis of all these research experiences, I will interpret the functioning of the security industry, the value added by private security and thus the new structure of policing in the light of the “Security Rethought” questionnaire survey. Based on my research, I will attempt to unpack and explain the mechanisms of the relationship between state and non-state actors in the creation and maintenance of security. By interpreting the path to date and suggesting a possible future, I try to combine an academic approach with the knowledge that emerges from the work of practitioners. Emphasising the scientific need for change and improvement, and the fusion of dogmatics and practice, I seek, in the framework of this research, to address some of the issues that I consider controversial and, as a result of this confrontation, to stimulate further research and the development of alternative solutions for those who are open to the development of the emerging science of policing, by setting out the legislative and theoretical problems of the subject.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia et SecuritasSame topicHungarian Social, Economic and Educational StudiesFrench-language works237,207