MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795246806 · doi:10.5539/res.v10n2p82

Prioritising Training and People-oriented Security Education for Effective Policing in Nigeria

2018· article· en· W2795246806 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chibuzor Chile Nwobueze, James Okolie-Osemene, Ndu John Young

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplicityTerrorismAgency (philosophy)Public relationsPublic securityLaw enforcementDutyPolitical scienceTraining (meteorology)CriminologyPublic administrationLawSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, Nigeria’s security sector needs effective policing considering the spate of insecurity and frustrated relationship between the citizens and the police. Consequently, some officers are seen as dishonest and agents of complicity. Unlike most parts of the world where the people love, support the police, Nigeria still records threats to police-public relations owing to the attitudes of some officers who tarnish the image of the security agency through uncivilised, inhuman and unlawful acts while on duty and beyond. With qualitative data, this paper explores how training and people-oriented security education can enhance effective policing for a more secure Nigeria. This paper argues that police effectiveness should no longer be hinged only on equipping officers for counter-terrorism or establishment of special units to eradicate organised crime, but also on training them on weekly/monthly basis to respond to rapidly emerging threats to national security and trainings on enhancing collaborative police-public relations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207