Az állami és nem állami szereplők újragondolt szerepe a biztonság megteremtésében és fenntartásában.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".