Plural Policing and Access to Justice in Pacific Small Island Developing States: A Tuvaluan Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) present unique challenges and opportunities for law enforcement. Characteristics such as strong communal ties, social and cultural norms, limited state visibility, and strained resources impact the interpretation and application of state laws. At the same time, local legitimacy is often found in community-oriented approaches to policing and tailored law enforcement responses through parallel policing systems. While most research on plural policing in the Pacific SIDS has considered the larger Pacific Island countries in Melanesia, this paper focuses on how plural systems of law-and-order maintenance impact policing in Tuvalu, a microstate in Polynesia. Key stakeholders ( N = 23) including religious leaders, police officers and leaders, and community leaders from Tuvalu participated in semi-structured interviews. The findings highlight the significance of informal networks in influencing policing decisions. This influence has implications for action on the access to justice agenda, particularly concerning the use of police authority, equitable law enforcement practices, accountability, and fairness. The findings contribute to more inclusive discussions of plural policing and its nuanced impacts on access to justice in the Pacific SIDS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".