MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W765486069

Highway criminal interdiction in Australia: Victoria Police crime and traffic connecting on highways (C.A.T.C.H.)

2012· article· en· W765486069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Sayer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterdictionLaw enforcementEnforcementCriminologyPolitical scienceLawBusinessGeographyComputer securityPsychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highway criminal interdiction is a law enforcement strategy which enhances police officersr observational, conversational, listening and investigative skills when intercepting and searching vehicles. Highway criminal interdiction has been extremely effective across Canada and North America over the past 20 years as a means of interrupting criminal activity on roads. In Canada alone, the strategy has resulted in contraband and drugs seizures in excess of $4 billion. The strategy involves training law enforcement officers to identify indicators of criminal behaviour and increase their observational, conversational, listening and investigative skills during a vehicle intercept. This strategy was introduced to Australia by Victoria Police in 2010 and titled 'Crime and Traffic Connecting on Highways' (C.A.T.C.H.). This strategy has significantly impacted on road policing and other criminal activity. Since introduction to Victoria Police, C.A.T.C.H. training has been delivered to 3,000 law enforcement officers from Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland Police Services. Detections of criminal behaviour on Australian highways as a result of C.A.T.C.H. range from high risk driving behaviours through to large seizures of drugs and other contraband. Total seizures to date amount to A$37 million and climbing. C.A.T.C.H. provides law enforcement agencies with a significant tool in efforts to disrupt criminal activity because at some point criminals and their activities are on our roadways.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207