MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790102522 · doi:10.3390/ijgi7030101

Investigating the Influences of Tree Coverage and Road Density on Property Crime

2018· article· en· W2790102522 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chengming Ye, Yifei Chen, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty crimeOrdinary least squaresGeographyDowntownRegression analysisProperty (philosophy)Spatial analysisEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsViolent crimeRemote sensingCriminologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), crime mapping has become an effective approach for investigating the spatial pattern of crime in a defined area. Understanding the relationship between crime and its surrounding environment reveals possible strategies for reducing crime in a neighborhood. The relationship between vegetation density and crime has long been under debate. The convenience of a road network is another important factor that can influence a criminal’s selection of locations. This research is conducted to investigate the correlations between tree coverage and property crime, and road density and property crime in the City of Vancouver. High spatial resolution airborne LiDAR data and road network data collected in 2013 were used to extract tree covered areas for cross-sectional analysis. The independent variables were inserted into Ordinary Least-Squares (OLS) regression, Spatial Lag regression, and Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) models to examine their relationships to property crime rates. The results of the cross-sectional analysis provide statistical evidence that there are negative correlations between property crime rates and both tree coverage and road density, with the stronger correlations occurring around Downtown Vancouver.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS International Journal of Geo-InformationSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207