MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057220373 · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753551

Experience, adjustment, and engagement

2010· article· en· W2057220373 on OpenAlexaff
Joe Tullio, Elaine M. Huang, Daniel Wheatley, Harry Zhang, Claudia Guerrero, Amruta Tamdoo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaw enforcementWork (physics)EnforcementKey (lock)Computer scienceInternet privacyKnowledge managementBusinessComputer securityPublic relationsLawPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Questions about the effectiveness of increasingly ubiquitous video technology in law enforcement have prompted an examination of the practices surrounding this technology. We present the results of a multi-site study aimed at understanding the use of video in several phases of law enforcement, from crime prevention and response to investigation and prosecution. Our findings show that while video has provided numerous benefits to law enforcement agencies, in many cases the technology either fails to support key facets of work or introduces new tasks that present an additional burden to workers. We discuss the need to incorporate human experience and tacit knowledge, operator engagement, and the greater ecosystem of work into video deployments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1670.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.361 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207