MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048716901 · doi:10.1002/jid.1721

A comprehensive estimation of costs of crime in South Africa and its implications for effective policy making

2010· article· en· W2048716901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erik Alda, José Cuesta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimationHomicidePublic economicsPoint (geometry)EconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Cost–benefit analysisEconomic costActuarial scienceBusinessPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPolitical scienceGeographyLawEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite South African crime rates (including homicide) are among the world's top, no comprehensive estimation of criminal costs is being attempted thus far. The increasing attention to estimates of crime-related disability adjusted life years (DALYs) is welcome but we show by estimating the cost of multiple offenses in South Africa (from housebreaking to personal, vehicle and cattle theft, among others) that concentrating the measurement of criminal costs on few items may mislead policy choices. In fact, DALYs associated costs represent less than a quarter of total crime costs after including other medical, institutional, private security, economic costs and transfers (totalling 7.8% of GDP). We conclude that estimating the burden of crime is interesting in itself, but from a policy point of view it is the distribution of this burden across crime categories and cost items that matters. Not only policy making against crime must be evidence-based, but also the generation of information on crime must be also consistent with policy options shown to be effective. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International DevelopmentSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207