MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123660524 · doi:10.1163/156851801300171706

What Does the World Spend on Policing?

2001· article· en· W2123660524 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Graham Farrell, Erin C. Lane, Ken Clark, Andromachi Tseloni

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic, Social, and Health Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGross domestic productBalance (ability)Product (mathematics)EconomicsOfficial statisticsCriminal justiceEconometricsPolitical scienceEconomic growthStatisticsLawPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social indicators vary in their breadth and coverage. One popular indicator of the priority that society gives to specific areas of life is a measure of monetary expenditure. Do we spend more or less on X or on Y? Is the balance correct? A necessary precursor to such comparisons is measurement. This paper presents a method for estimating annual global expenditure on policing. Data from the fifth sweep of the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Systems are supplemented with information from other sources. The relationship between gross domestic product and policing expenditure is examined via regression methods. The coefficients are used to extrapolate across space to produce national policing estimates from which a global estimate is derived. It is estimated that the world spent U.S. $194 billion on public policing in the year 2000. The method utilized to produce this estimate is described, and the implications and possibilities for future research are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicEconomic, Social, and Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207