MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143008597 · doi:10.1177/0734016815573309

Space–Time Clustering of Crime Events and Neighborhood Characteristics in Houston

2015· article· en· W2143008597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yan Zhang, Jihong Zhao, Ling Ren, Larry T. Hoover

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisGeographyCriminologyCluster (spacecraft)Quarter (Canadian coin)Space (punctuation)CartographyDemographyPsychologySociologyStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial–temporal interaction analysis is employed to identify repeat and near-repeat patterns of crime in time and space. Most research to date addresses burglary and shooting incidents. Using the Knox method for space–time interaction, this study analyzes crime data in 12 “super neighborhoods” located in Houston’s crime-heavy southwest quadrant to explore spatial–temporal clustering of three types of crime, namely, residential burglary, street robbery, and aggravated assault. The findings suggest that each type of crime event has a unique clustering signature. Residential burglaries show significant space–time clustering in a relatively longer time range (up to 90 days) and distance interval (up to 1.55 miles). In contrast, street robberies present significant clustering only up to 6 days and a quarter of a mile. For aggravated assault, the clusters of pairs occur within the interval of 7 days and within a little more than 1 mile of an initial assault. Examination of the socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhoods indicates that crime events cluster more often in low income and racially/ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Significant spatial correlations of crime clusters are detected. The findings offer insight into potential suppression of crime events that are time and space correlated.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice ReviewSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207