Investigating the Influences of Tree Coverage and Road Density on Property Crime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".