MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614808596 · doi:10.1186/s40163-017-0067-z

Retraction Note to: Investigative advising: a job for Bayes

2017· article· en· W2614808596 on OpenAlexaff
Jared C. Allen

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrime Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCriminologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian approaches to police decision support offer an improvement upon more commonly used statistical approaches. Common approaches to case decision support often involve using frequencies from cases similar to the case under consideration to come to an isolated likelihood that a given suspect either a) committed the crime or b) has a given characteristic or set of characteristics. The Bayesian approach, in contrast, offers formally contextualized estimates and utilizes the formal logic desired by investigators. Bayes’ theorem incorporates the isolated likelihood as one element of a three-part equation, the other parts being 1) what was known generally about the variables in the case prior to the case occurring (the scientific-theoretical priors) and 2) the relevant base rate information that contextualizes the evidence obtained (the event context). These elements are precisely the domain of decision support specialists (investigative advisers), and the Bayesian paradigm is uniquely apt for combining them into contextualized estimates for decision support. By formally combining the relevant knowledge, context, and likelihood, Bayes’ theorem can improve the logic, accuracy, and relevance of decision support statements.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptMetaresearchResearch integrity
Domain: Methods · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0090.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.020

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrityMetaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrime ScienceSame topicData Analysis with RCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207