MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906618859 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14667993.v1

Crime and individual and neighbourhood sociodemographic characteristics in the City of Toronto

2021· preprint· en· W2906618859 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabby Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)GeographyProperty crimeCensusDisadvantagedDemographicsDemographyCriminologyDemographic economicsSocioeconomicsViolent crimePsychologySociologyEconomic growthPopulationMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of this study is to determine what neighbourhood and offender-related demographic characteristics impact crime rates in the City of Toronto. By doing so, quantitative and qualitative approaches were implemented in this study. This study includes both property and violent crime datasets from 2014-2016 and census related information from the 2011 Canadian Census. The advancing techniques of Geographical Information System (GIS) has been explored and applied to achieve a thorough understanding of crime occurrences and patterns in the city. Hotspot and Kernel Density mapping were applied to analyze the spatial distribution of crime occurrences and account for spatial autocorrelation. Findings revealed that property and violent crimes across the three years of study showed similar distribution of significant hotspots in the core, Northwest, and East end of the city. An Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression was conducted to examine the ways in which individual and neighbourhood demographic characteristics predict the effects of crime occurrences. The OLS model was a good predictor for offender-related demographics as opposed to neighbourhood level demographics at the 0.05 significant level. These findings revealed that social disadvantaged neighbourhood characteristics such as low income, unemployment, low education, female lone parent were poor predictors of property crimes but good predictors for violent crimes. However, individual characteristics were.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207