A meta-analysis of the impact of community policing on crime reduction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few decades, many studies have been conducted to understand whether community policing (CP) has an impact on reducing crime rates. Yet there is still substantial controversy surrounding the question of the impact of CP on crime rates. Despite the broad understanding of CP, various types of measurement of crime statistics have led research- ers to conduct meta-analyses of the phenomenon. This study combines two previous meta-analyses of CP and Turkish and English online searches. We used the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA 3.0) statistical program to calculate the effect sizes of previous studies. We employed odds ratio (OR) as the effect size, since it is one of the most appropriate methods for proportions. We found no evidence suggesting that CP has an impact on reducing disorders, drug sales, or property crime, but it does have an impact on reducing crimes such as burglary, gun use, drug use, Part I crimes, and robbery, as well as fear of crime. Depending on crime type, CP can be a promising policing strategy to reduce crimes. und a statistically significant, positive impact of CP, despite the limitations of including only Turkish- and English-language studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it