The impact of using social media data in crime rate calculations: shifting hot spots and changing spatial patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crime rate is a statistic used to summarize the risk of criminal events. However, research has shown that choosing the appropriate denominator is non-trivial. Different crime types exhibit different spatial opportunities and so does the population at risk. The residential population is the most commonly used population at risk, but is unlikely to be suitable for crimes that involve mobile populations. In this article, we use “crowd-sourced” data in Leeds, England, to measure the population at risk, considering violent crime. These new data sources have the potential to represent mobile populations at higher spatial and temporal resolutions than other available data. Through the use of two local spatial statistics (Getis-Ord GI* and the Geographical Analysis Machine) and visualization, we show that when the volume of social media messages, as opposed to the residential population, is used as a proxy for the population at risk, criminal event hot spots shift spatially. Specifically, the results indicate a significant shift in the city center, eliminating its hot spot. Consequently, if crime reduction/prevention efforts are based on resident population based crime rates, such efforts may not only be ineffective in reducing criminal event risk, but be a waste of public resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".