Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In this study, we compared experts' and novices' estimates of the power of several cues to predict residential burglary. Participants were experienced police officers and burglars, and graduates with no experience in this domain. They all estimated the weight of each cue in predicting the likelihood of a property being burgled. In addition, they ranked the cues according to how useful they would be in predicting the likelihood of burglary. Results showed that the two expert groups differed substantially in their cue weights and rankings, and the police officers were actually more similar to novices in this regard. Beyond this, the two expert groups were more consistent in their responses than novices, that is, they showed less variability in their estimates when using different response method and were more consistent with other participants from their own group. Our results extend the literature on expert-novice differences, and have implications for criminal justice policy and decision making.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!