Evaluation and Legal Compliance Framework Design of Public Safety Public Opinion Incident Response System Based on Hierarchical Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of the Internet, public safety public opinion events have gradually become an important part of social public opinion and an important content of government response.In order to establish a standard system for evaluating the response effectiveness of the public safety public opinion incident response system, this paper, in accordance with the current status of the government's public safety public opinion incident response system and the literature, selects four indicators, namely, serviceability, dynamics, timeliness and legitimacy, as the criterion layer of the evaluation system.Hierarchical analysis method and TOPSIS method are used to evaluate the public security public opinion incident response system.Finally, in order to verify the reasonableness of the AHP-TOPSIS method for evaluating the response effect of the public security public opinion event response system to public opinion events, 80 cases were selected, which were clustered and analyzed and the proximity scores between the samples and the positive ideal solutions were calculated, and the clustered samples were ranked to obtain the response effect ratings of the system to different events.The analysis of the data shows that timeliness has the most significant effect on the evaluation of the public security public opinion event response system, and the public security public opinion event response system responds best to government-led policy-oriented major public opinion events.The legal compliance framework can be constructed from three aspects: improving the existing laws and regulations on public security public opinion events, strictly enforcing the existing laws and regulations, and carrying out in-depth legal publicity, so as to lay the foundation for the implementation of the legal review work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".