Safety and security: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators of violence : OPHI working paper no. 01
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence impedes human freedom to live safely and securely and can sustain poverty traps in many\ncommunities. One of the challenges for academics, policy makers, and practitioners working broadly in\nprogrammes aimed at poverty alleviation, including violence prevention, is the lack of reliable and\ncomparable data on the incidence and nature of violence. This paper proposes a household survey\nmodule for a multidimensional poverty questionnaire which can be used to complement the available\ndata on the incidence of violence against property and the person, as well as perceptions of security and\nsafety. Violence and poverty are inextricably linked, although the direction of causality is contested if not\ncircular. The module uses standardised definitions which are clear and can be translated cross-culturally\nand a clear disaggregation of different types of interpersonal violence (not including self-harm) which\nbridges the crime–conflict nexus.
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 | 0.096 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".