Avaliação do Programa Ronda do Quarteirão através de uma metodologia baseada em análise de intervenção
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General objective of this study is to assess the impact of community policing (the "Round Block") in the spatial and socio economic crime and violence in metropolitan Fortaleza through a quasi-experimental methodology. In general the methodology implemented to assess the impact of the program is based on models RONDA Analysis of Intervention. This methodology assumes that a series receives an intervention in a specific framework of its dynamics, and assumes that changes after the intervention (ceteris paribus) are motivated by external shock. Our case-specific intervention will be the start of RONDA that was in November 2007. Of the analysis, we found that the results only through visual inspection and simple calculations of averages in the different sub-periods, pre and post intervention, the program seems to have RONDA positively affected the number of people to theft and robbery to a business, not helped to decrease the amount of theft from residences. In short, the program had RONDA statistically significant effect in only one type of crime: theft from residences. Besides the quantitative research, is still part of this thesis a qualitative research that was conducted six months after the intervention program. It was found that 72% of the population considers the program excellent / good and 66% say they are safer. These qualitative data corroborate the claim that the program intervention was positive. This experiment is a milestone in the security area because it uses scientific methods based on statistical analysis to evaluate a government program, the Quarter Round. This is the greatest social gain that the state of Ceara in this area can get, because through it opens a door where academic knowledge coupled with the police practice will result in a security model smart, modern and optimized.
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 | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".