CrimeWalker
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have long realized that analysis of co-offending networks, networks of offenders who have committed crimes together, is invaluable for crime investigation, crime reduction and prevention. Investigating crime can be a challenging and difficult task, especially in cases with many potential suspects and inconsistent witness accounts or inconsistencies between witness accounts and physical evidence. We present here a novel approach to crime suspect recommendation based on partial knowledge of offenders involved in a crime incident and a known co-offending network. To solve this problem, we propose a random walk based method for recommending the top-K potential suspects. By evaluating the proposed method on a large crime dataset for the Province of British Columbia, Canada, we show experimentally that this method outperforms baseline random walk and association rule-based methods. Additionally, results obtained for public domain data from experiments for co-author recommendation on a DBLP co-authorship network are consistent with those on the crime dataset. Compared to the crime dataset, the performance of all competitors is much better on the DBLP dataset, confirming that crime suspect recommendation is an inherently harder task.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it