MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992256608 · doi:10.1177/0887403407311591

Crime Prevention and the Science of Where People Are

2008· article· en· W1992256608 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice Policy Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrime preventionPopulationCensusCriminologyGeographyBusinessEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crime prevention initiatives are often conceptualized working at primary-secondary-tertiary (PST) levels. Primary prevention efforts address the underlying social, economic, and physical environmental conditions that generate crime; secondary prevention efforts focus on people, places, and social conditions that are at high risk of crime; whereas tertiary prevention efforts are directed toward already existing and specific crime problems. This article discusses the uses of the ambient population (a 24-hr average estimate of the population present in a spatial area) to better inform crime prevention initiatives within the PST framework. Though the results indicate the ambient population has utility for all three levels of crime prevention, the most immediate use is in tertiary prevention to better understand the nature of areas with a current crime problem. This information is not available from the resident (or census) population because the resident population indicates where people sleep, not where they are.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.317 · 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