MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383760480 · doi:10.56687/9781447353621

Implementing Evidence-Based Research

2021· book· en· W4383760480 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Huey, Renée J. Mitchell, Hina Kalyal, Roger Pegram

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When it comes to adopting evidence-based approaches, does the size of an organization really matter? This practical guide brings leading police and sociology experts together to demonstrate how police forces of all sizes can successfully embed evidence-based methods by using their strengths and limitations to their advantage. Drawing on experiences of policing in North America, it proposes new ways of strategizing and harnessing the talents of ‘change champions’. Building on the authors’ widely adopted first book on evidence-based policing, this is essential reading for practitioners, aspiring leaders, students and policy-makers.

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)0.335
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.352
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3350.352
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0280.022
Open science0.0090.018
Research integrity0.0160.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.016

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 head0.847
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.188 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207