MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033381876 · doi:10.1177/1088767900004002002

Uncleared Homicides

2000· article· en· W2033381876 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHomicide Studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideLogistic regressionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionDemographyInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthCriminologyMedicinePsychologyGeographyMedical emergencySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning in the 1960s, there has been a marked decline in clearance rates of homicides, a finding that has generated little interest among criminological researchers. This article presents a comparative analysis of homicide clearance in Canada and the United States using data generated by the Canadian Centre of Justice Statistics and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Reports. Using logistic regression, homicide clearance is predicted on the basis of specific victim and offense characteristics for cases in Canada versus the United States and in Ontario versus New York State. The results indicate that the model is a good fit for homicide clearance in both countries as a whole. Whereas the homicide weapon, circumstances surrounding the offense, age, and gender of the victim were found to be significant homicide clearance predictors in New York State, only the circumstances surrounding the offense emerged as an important predictor in Ontario.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.331 · 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