Traveling to Violence: The Case for a Mobility-Based Spatial Typology of Homicide
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
According to routine activities theory, crime is the result of an intersection between victims and offenders in both time and space. We introduce a spatial typology that identifies five combinations of victim and offender mobility to homicide incident locations: internal, predatory, intrusion, offense mobility, and total mobility types. The authors’ argue that the joint mobility pattern of the victim and offender is the mechanism underlying routine activities theory, and made explicit by the spatial typology. Using information on the 420 homicides in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, between 1987 and 1995, we demonstrate that the majority of homicides involve at least some mobility on the part of victims and/or offenders. Our results also indicate that mobility to homicide incident locations is most associated with event characteristics such as motive, rather than with characteristics of the participants. With most offenders committing the homicide outside of their own neighborhood, levels of lethal violence in a community are influenced more by the interaction among nonlocal participants than by the violent actions of local residents.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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