MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545166822 · doi:10.1300/j031v14n02_04

Gerontological Perspectives on Crime and Nuisance

2002· article· en· W1545166822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Cozens, David Hillier, Gwyn Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging & Social Policy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFear of crimeNuisancePerceptionCriminologyAutonomyBuilt environmentDignityTerritorialityPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyPsychologyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the perceptions of the elderly in relation to crime and nuisance and the fear of crime associated with stereotypical British housing designs. Demographically, this diverse though highly urbanized group continues to grow; group members' observations, therefore, have increasing social relevance and political importance and are crucial for assessing and informing both current policy and the evolution of future policy initiatives. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) has become popular once again in America, Australia, Canada, South Africa, as well as in Europe and Britain. A crucial dimension to this theory concerns the perception of "territoriality," "surveillance," and "image" within the design of the built environment derived from Newman's "Defensible Space" concepts (1973). This paper presents and discusses the ways in which the elderly associate crime and nuisance with a range of traditional housing designs. The findings strongly reinforce Newman's theory. The paper concludes that the design and, perhaps more importantly, the management of residential housing influence the perceived levels of crime, nuisance, and fear of crime, and the "defensible" qualities of each specific design. Such perceptions will arguably affect elderly people's ability to maintain their privacy, dignity, and autonomy, their physical and psychological well-being, and their social inclusion. Policy implications for housing the elderly safely within the community are reviewed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.025
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging & Social PolicySame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207