The strongest does not attract all but it does attract the most – evaluating the criminal attractiveness of shopping malls using fuzzy logic
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
Abstract Crime attractors are locations (e.g. shopping malls) that attract criminally motivated offenders because of the presence of known criminal opportunities. Although there have been many studies that explore the patterns of crime in and around these locations, there are still many questions that linger. In recent years, there has been a growing interest to develop mathematical models in attempts to help answer questions about various criminological phenomena. In this paper, we are interested in applying a formal methodology to model the relative attractiveness of crime attractor locations based on characteristics of offenders and the crime they committed. To accomplish this task, we adopt fuzzy logic techniques to calculate the attractiveness of crime attractors in three suburban cities in the Metro Vancouver region of British Columbia, Canada. The fuzzy logic techniques provide results comparable with our real‐life expectations that offenders do not necessarily commit significant crimes in the immediate neighbourhood of the attractors, but travel towards it, and commit crimes on the way. The results of this study could lead to a variety of crime prevention benefits and urban planning strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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