‘The name of the game’: policing perspectives on cybercrime disruption
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing focus on disruption as a response to cybercrime in criminological and cybersecurity research. This paper seeks to extend existing literature on the police role in relation to cybercrime. The paper is based on a large, international and comparative study on the policing of cybercrime involving 90 interviews with members of law enforcement or policing agencies across three Five Eyes countries. Disruption emerged organically as a major theme regarding how police pursue their role in two of those countries. The paper is framed around the following themes: the necessity for disruption, understanding disruption, approaching disruption, and evaluating disruption. Both countries tended to adopt different mandates in relation to cybercrime that subsequently impacted how disruption is defined, operationalised, and measured. However, underlying these differences was a shared perception that disruption was increasingly becoming the most pragmatic cyber policing strategy, which has significant implications for police policy and practice.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it