MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324121898 · doi:10.5771/9783748937968

Angriffe auf Rettungskräfte

2023· book· en· W4324121898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johannes Reuschen

Bibliographic record

VenueNomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooks · 2023
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGerman Security and Defense Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutrageQuarter (Canadian coin)PoliticsCriminologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsPsychologyHistoryLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attacks on rescue workers often generate a great deal of media coverage. The reporting is often limited to the description of individual, particularly incisive attacks on those who actually want to provide help. The public outrage is palpable and the reporting also leads to a sensitization of society, politics and the affected rescue workers themselves. The quantitative dark field study is based on a broad survey of about a quarter of all rescue workers in Rhineland-Palatinate. It provides new insights into the extent of violence, perpetrators, crime scenes, victims, causes and prevention options.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.069

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooksSame topicGerman Security and Defense PoliciesFrench-language works237,207