Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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 | 0.037 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".