Persistence of Crime Hot Spots: An Ordered Probit Analysis
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
The temporal persistence of crime hot spots is recognized as a valuable indicator of consistent problem areas. The current literature has not adequately addressed the mechanisms that perpetuate or interrupt persistent crime hot spots. Investigating the persistence of violent crime hot spots in Columbus, Ohio, from 1994 to 2002, this study fills a gap in the literature by identifying neighborhood structural correlates that drive the persistence of hot spots. Specifically, this study identifies yearly crime hot spots, and estimates an ordered probit model to explore the neighborhood structural determinants. The results indicate that socio‐economic factors, identified from a synthesis of social disorganization theory and routine activity theory, significantly correlate with persistent patterns of violent crime hot spots. This gives evidence that a combination of the two ruling spatial theories of crime provides an applicable framework for understanding the temporal dimension of violent crime hot spots. By identifying the factors that contribute to the persistence of hot spots of crime, insights gained from the results can help to inform focused crime prevention efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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