MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910524267 · doi:10.1109/iemcon.2018.8614828

Crime Analysis Through Machine Learning

2018· article· en· W2910524267 on OpenAlexaffabout
Su Hong Kim, Param Joshi, Parminder Singh Kalsi, Pooya Taheri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsFraser InstituteSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision treeComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceCrime analysisWork (physics)Random forestCriminologyEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates machine-learning-based crime prediction. In this work, Vancouver crime data for the last 15 years is analyzed using two different data-processing approaches. Machine-Learning predictive models, K-nearest-neighbour and boosted decision tree, are implemented and a crime prediction accuracy between 39% to 44% is obtained when predicting crime in 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations167
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207