Cited by 46Policing Practices and PerceptionsIntelligence, Security, War StrategyCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance

Implementing Intelligence-Led Policing: An Application of Loose-Coupling Theory

Carter, Jeremy G., Phillips, Scott W., Gayadeen, S. Marlon·2014·Journal of Criminal Justice

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.08.002

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some interventions included initiatives to enhance positive police-community interactions or provide data-driven policing materials to citizens.

    “These included initiatives to enhance positive policecommunity interactions or provide data-driven policing materials to citizens (e.g., Carter et al., 2014).”
  • In the Indianapolis harm spot policing experiment, application of hot spots policing in crime and social harm hot spots was translated into potential cost savings to society.

    “For example, in the Indianapolis harm spot policing experiment, the application of hot spots policing in crime and social harm hot spots was translated into potential cost savings to society.”
  • It was calculated that per 10.4 minutes of officer proactive activity in social harm spots, the costs of social harm were reduced by $38.6, totaling $118,232 during the experimental period.

    “It was calculated that per 10.4 minutes of officer proactive activity in social harm (hot) spots, the costs of social harm were reduced by $38.6, a total of $118,232 during the experimental period (Carter et al., 2014).”
  • Carter et al. (2014) discovered that citizens generally did not oppose the use of algorithms for decision-making processes by police agencies.

    “Similar findings were acknowledged by Carter et al. (2014), who also discovered that citizens generally did not oppose the use of algorithms for decision-making processes by police agencies.”
  • Citizens expressed a preference for some human involvement when decisions were based on intelligence derived from fully automated (big data) algorithms.

    “However, citizens expressed a preference for some human involvement when decisions were based on intelligence derived from fully automated (big data) algorithms.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Carter, J. G., Phillips, S. W., & Gayadeen, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Buffalo State University (US)
Corresponding author
Carter, Jeremy G.
Venue
Journal of Criminal Justice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
433-442
ISSN
0047-2352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038674789
Cited by
46
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
26.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Keywords
intelligence-led policing, agency size, state and local law enforcement, technology adoption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review