Integrated framework for criminal network extraction from Web
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
Extracting criminals’ information and discovering their network are techniques that investigators often rely on to get extra information about criminal incidents and potential criminals. With the recent advances of the Web, a.k.a. Web 2.0, it has become a rich source of data which provides a variety of information sources. In this article, we propose an integrated framework that combines a variety of available components and makes use of different sources of information provided on the Web to get a better knowledge about criminals or terrorists (we will use criminals to cover all terrorists in the rest of this article). Our system extracts criminals’ information and their corresponding network using Web sources, such as online newspapers, official reports, and social media. It uses text analysis to identify key persons and topics from crawled Web documents. We build a criminal graph from the analysed text based on the co-occurrence of mentioning of criminals. Further analysis is applied on the constructed graph to get key people, hidden relationships and interactions between criminals, as well as hierarchical criminal groups within a network. For every process in the framework, we analysed various available works and implementations that could be used in the process. While analysing social media posts, we identified several challenges which show what solutions could be used for that purpose. Finally, we provide a Web application which implements the proposed framework. It also shows how helpful and efficient the system is in extracting and analysing criminal information.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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