Globalisation and policing in Tuvalu: perspectives on negotiating changing power structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global influences on policing are not a recent development. The legacy of colonisation is evident in contemporary police organisations and justice systems in the Pacific Islands, which are exposed to globalisation through a range of means. Pacific Island countries are also influenced by traditional sources of authority, such as customary chiefly systems and religious leadership, that shape and contribute to justice and policing in important and nuanced ways. This study aimed to contribute to understanding the dynamic interplay between globalised policing practices and values, and local customary and religious authority from the perspectives of local actors. We draw upon interviews with police officers, community leaders and religious leaders in the small multi-island country of Tuvalu. The findings show that although there are some perceived benefits associated with globalised inter-jurisdictional practices, there can be conflicting approaches and views among local security stakeholders. Overall, the findings suggest that to address issues effectively in the community, police officers must navigate and negotiate with traditional sources of authority – in this case, customary and religious leaders. Despite globalising influences, the dynamic interplay with traditional influences generates nuanced approaches that reflect relationality and plurality in policing. These findings align with scholarly arguments that policing is best understood as co-constituted between the Global North and Global South, shaped by relational processes, and the legacies of colonialism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".