MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151050754 · doi:10.1348/135532508x349336

Addressing problems with traditional crime linking methods using receiver operating characteristic analysis

2008· article· en· W2151050754 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal and Criminological Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicSet (abstract data type)Identification (biology)Computer scienceSimilarity (geometry)Task (project management)Sample (material)Data miningFunction (biology)Measure (data warehouse)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMachine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose. Through an examination of serial rape data, the current article presents arguments supporting the use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis over traditional methods in addressing challenges that arise when attempting to link serial crimes. Primarily, these arguments centre on the fact that traditional linking methods do not take into account how linking accuracy will vary as a function of the threshold used for determining when two crimes are similar enough to be considered linked. Methods. Considered for analysis were 27 crime scene behaviours exhibited in 126 rapes, which were committed by 42 perpetrators. Similarity scores were derived for every possible crime pair in the sample. These measures of similarity were then subjected to ROC analysis in order to (1) determine threshold‐independent measures of linking accuracy and (2) set appropriate decision thresholds for linking purposes. Results. By providing a measure of linking accuracy that is not biased by threshold placement, the analysis confirmed that it is possible to link crimes at a level that significantly exceeds chance ( AUC = .75). The use of ROC analysis also allowed for the identification of decision thresholds that resulted in the desired balance between various linking outcomes (e.g. hits and false alarms). Conclusions. ROC analysis is exclusive in its ability to circumvent the limitations of threshold‐specific results yielded from traditional approaches to linkage analysis. Moreover, results of the current analysis provide a basis for challenging common assumptions underlying the linking task.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.592
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.091 · 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