MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072439276 · doi:10.1080/15614263.2012.674300

Myth and reality: interpreting the dynamics of crime trends: lies, damn lies and (criminal) statistics

2012· article· en· W2072439276 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolice Practice and Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive dissonanceFunnelStatisticsCrime statisticsCriminal behaviorCriminologyPsychologyLawPolitical scienceSociologySocial psychologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently released statistics from Statistics Canada appear to be creating a dissonance between official statistics and victimization studies. This dissonance is confirmed and a Funnel Theory is posited to relieve the dissonance and provide a single explanation of the disparate statistics. Funnel Theory holds that changes in the criminal legal process are determinative of the changes in criminal statistics. The impacts of changes in police reporting, digital technology and court decisions are examined using the lens of the Funnel Theory. This examination demonstrates the growing incapacity of the criminal legal system to deal with actual crime levels or to satisfy public demands for effective response to criminal behaviour.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.349 · 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