MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109924985 · doi:10.5683/sp2/ie6nry

Calgary Crime Statistics Data Analytics

2019· dataset· en· W3109924985 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheryl Kwong, Drew Anweiler, Mary Sarafraz

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaw enforcementHarmCriminologyCrime statisticsAnalyticsPopulationOrder (exchange)EnforcementInternet privacyPsychologyData sciencePolitical scienceSociologyBusinessLawComputer scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crime isn't a topic most people want to use mental energy to think about. We want to avoid harm, protect our loved ones, and hold on to what we claim is ours. So how do we remain vigilant without digging too deep into the filth that is crime? Data, of course. The focus of our study is to explore possible trends between crime and communities in the city of Calgary. Our purpose is visualize Calgary criminal behaviour in order to help increase awareness for both citizens and law enforcement. Through the use of our visuals, individuals can make more informed decisions to improve the overall safety of their lives. Some of the main concerns of the study include: how crime rates increase with population, which areas in Calgary have the most crime, and if crime adheres to time-sensative patterns.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0120.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisSame topicData Analysis with RFrench-language works237,207