Ambient Population and Larceny-Theft: A Spatial Analysis Using Mobile Phone Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the spatial analysis of crime, the residential population has been a conventional measure of the population at risk. Recent studies suggest that the ambient population is a useful alternative measure of the population at risk that can better capture the activity patterns of a population. However, current studies are limited by the availability of high precision demographic characteristics, such as social activities and the origins of residents. In this research, we use spatially referenced mobile phone data to measure the size and activity patterns of various types of ambient population, and further investigate the link between urban larceny-theft and population with multiple demographic and activity characteristics. A series of crime attractors, generators, and detractors are also considered in the analysis to account for the spatial variation of crime opportunities. The major findings based on a negative binomial model are three-fold. (1) The size of the non-local population and people’s social regularity calculated from mobile phone big data significantly correlate with the spatial variation of larceny-theft. (2) Crime attractors, generators, and detractors, measured by five types of Points of Interest (POIs), significantly depict the criminality of places and impact opportunities for crime. (3) Higher levels of nighttime light are associated with increased levels of larceny-theft. The results have practical implications for linking the ambient population to crime, and the insights are informative for several theories of crime and crime prevention efforts.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".