Restrictions in pub closing times and lockouts in Newcastle, <scp>A</scp>ustralia five years on
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: In 2008 pub closing times were restricted from 5 am to 3:30 am in the central business district (CBD) of Newcastle, Australia. A previous study showed a one-third reduction in assaults in the 18 months following the restriction. We assessed whether the assault rate remained lower over the following 3.5 years and whether the introduction of a 'lockout' in nearby Hamilton was associated with a reduction in assaults there. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a pre-post design with comparison against two post-change periods. The setting was Greater Newcastle (population 530,000) and subjects were persons apprehended for assault in the CBD and nearby Hamilton, an area with late trading pubs where a lockout and other strategies were implemented in 2010. Cases were police-recorded assault apprehensions occurring from 10 pm to 6 am in one pre-change period: January 2001 to March 2008, and two post-change periods: (i) April 2008 to September 2009 and (ii) October 2009 to March 2013. Negative binomial regression with terms for secular trend and seasonal effects was used to estimate Post1: Pre and Post2: Pre Incidence Rate Ratios and confidence intervals. RESULTS: In the CBD recorded assaults fell from 99/quarter before the restriction to 68/quarter in the first post-change period [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.82] and 71/quarter (IRR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.85) in the later post-change period. In the same periods in Hamilton, assault rates were 23, 24, and 22 per quarter respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The restriction in closing time was associated with a sustained lower assault rate in the Newcastle CBD. We find no evidence that lockouts and other outlet management strategies were effective in Hamilton.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".