International Influences on United Kingdom Crime Control and Penal Policy in the 1990s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to describe and analyse the extent and nature of United States influence on United Kingdom criminal justice policy during the 1990s. More specifically, the researchers set out to: develop detailed case histories of policy change in the key areas associated with the UK learning from US developments (such as privatized corrections, zero tolerance policing, and 'two' and 'three strikes' sentencing); assess critically the extent to which these developments were actually informed and shaped by US influences; analyse the key processes of policy transfer between the US and UK, and to describe and analyse the development of transnational policy networks in criminal justice. The first stage of the research involved a detailed collation and review of documentary sources in each of the key areas of policy change -- government publications, parliamentary and congressional debates and reports, newspaper archives, pressure group and think tank publications, and academic books and journals. Following this initial mapping of case histories of policy change, around 100 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key players in the policy process, both in the UK and in the USA, including politicians, policy makers, journalists, representatives of pressure groups and NGOs, academics and criminal justice professionals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".