Explaining the growth of plural policing: comparing the Netherlands and Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past quarter century has seen a significant growth of interest in 'plural' policing.This relates, in part, to the very substantial expansion of private, predominantly commercial, security guards worldwide that has occurred in recent decades.However, the notion of plural policing also includes a range of other policing authorizers and providers, located within public, private or third sectors (or a mix thereof).Much of the writing on the pluralization of policing has focused primarily on trends in North America.There is a tendency to assume that the nature and degree of changes in policing are similar around the globe.However, research suggests that there are very different patterns of change in various parts of the world.It remains the case that little is known about the specific conditions that shape plural policing, and how these differ between national contexts.This paper explores the growth of plural policing within two EU countries -the Netherlands and Britain.It discusses areas of similarity and difference, and speculates about what factors might explain these.It suggests that changes in the policing systems of both countries can be related to a growing 'formalization' of social control, and to the distinctive political cultures and institutions in each country.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".