MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COMMUNITIES, STREET GUNS AND HOMICIDE TRAJECTORIES IN CHICAGO, 1980–1995: MERGING METHODS FOR EXAMINING HOMICIDE TRENDS ACROSS SPACE AND TIME*

2004· article· en· W2082764483 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Griffiths, Jorge M. Chávez

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideGeographyCriminologyExploratory analysisMerge (version control)CensusGun violencePoison controlDemographyInjury preventionPsychologySociologyComputer scienceData scienceMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We merge Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) and a semi‐parametric, group‐based trajectory procedure (TRAJ) to classify communities in Chicago by violence trajectories across space. Total, street gun and other weapon homicide trajectories are identified across 831 census tracts between 1980 and 1995. We find evidence consistent with a weapon substitution effect in violent neighborhoods that are proximate to one another, a defensive diffusion effect of exclusively street gun‐specific homicide increases in neighborhoods bordering the most violent areas, and a spatial decay effect of temporal homicide trends in which the most violent areas are buffered from the least violent by places experiencing mid‐range levels of lethal violence over time. In merging these two methods of data analysis, we provide a more efficient way to describe both spatial and temporal trends and make significant advances in furthering applications of space‐time methodologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations148
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologySame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207