Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Crime Stoppers Victoria (CSV) commenced in 1987 and is community-based initiative which encourages members of the public to provide information on unsolved crimes, people and people they know are involved in criminal activity (www.vic.crimestoppers.com.au). It is one of over 1000 Crime Stoppers programs around the world all of which provide a mechanism for citizens to pass information anonymously to the by phone. Implicitly, that information would otherwise not be provided to the police. The CSV website further states that is unique program that is based on a joint effort between the community, and the media. In practice the community provides information about suspicious and illegal behaviour and is represented by a voluntary Board of management for Crime Stoppers Victoria Ltd, an incorporated non-profit company limited by liability. Victoria Police department staff operates the Crime Stoppers call centre, where they receive and process crime information then refer to appropriate investigators. And the media publicise details of particular crimes and wanted people about both of which information is needed, as well as reporting arrests and providing crime prevention advice. Toni Makkai Acting Director Evaluation of Crime Stoppers Programs There are only three formally published evaluations of Crime Stoppers programs - from the USA (Rosenbaum et al. 1987, 1989), Canada (Carriere and Ericson 1989) and the UK (Gresham et al. 2001, 2003). Evaluating the success of a Crime Stoppers program is difficult because it is impossible to determine whether Crime Stoppers is actually solving crimes that would have otherwise remained a mystery or if the organization is simply diverting calls from traditional channels of communication that exist between the public and the police (Carriere and Ericson 1987, p. 81). When a call to Crime Stoppers does provide information about a matter previously unknown to police, and the subsequent investigation leads to an arrest, there is no doubt that Crime Stoppers has been successful. The UK Crimestoppers Trust on their website (www.crimestoppers-uk.org) is probably referring to these sorts of calls when they note that independent research has shown that nearly two-thirds of the offenders exposed by Crimestoppers were unknown to the police, or not suspected of the crime in question. However an evaluation can include a number of measures that reflect the achievements of a Crime Stoppers program. They include: * The level of community awareness of the program * Media support for the program * Participation in the program by the community * Relative value of calls to the program * Perception of the program by * The economic value of the program Community Awareness of Crime Stoppers Victoria A random telephone survey of 1008 Victorians in September 2002 revealed that 94 per cent of respondents said they knew what Crime Stoppers was. This level of recognition was not significantly different across the demographic characteristics of the sample that was equally split between city and country dwellers, males and females, and ranged across all ages. However there was a tendency for younger respondents to be more likely to indicate that they recognized Crime Stoppers. Recognising the name Crime Stoppers does not necessarily mean that respondents know what Crime Stoppers actually does. Accordingly the 948 respondents who said they knew what Crime Stoppers was, were then asked to describe in their own words. Not all people find easy to give a quick and accurate description when suddenly asked to do so by a telephone interviewer, and that proved to be the case here. Interviewers were asked to note which of the following four main features of Crime Stoppers were spontaneously mentioned by the respondents: * An avenue for making reports to the police; * A free telephone service; * A completely anonymous service; and * The possibility of a reward. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».