MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065522786 · doi:10.1177/0020852304041232

Performance Measures and Security Risk Management: a Hong Kong Example

2004· article· en· W2065522786 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Brewer, Ahmed Shafiqul Huque

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Administrative Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAgency (philosophy)EnforcementPublic sectorLaw enforcementRisk managementQuality (philosophy)Performance measurementPerformance managementPublic relationsAccountingMarketingFinanceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public agencies have an important role in establishing and ensuring a secure environment for business operations. Risk management decisions by international business enterprises can be informed usefully by performance data related to the services provided by a host country‘s law enforcement agencies. As recent public sector reforms have emphasized the development of indicators and the measurement of performance in public organizations, such as the police, this has made it possible for businesses to use these data to enhance the quality of their decisions about security needs related to both personnel and property. This article reviews the number of emergency calls received by the Hong Kong police and their response time and examines what inferences can be drawn from these data. Such an analysis highlights the need to compare and contrast different performance measures to obtain a comprehensive view of an agency‘s performance before making critical business decisions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Administrative SciencesSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207