Using Bayesian Tobit Models to Understand the Impact of Mobile Automated Enforcement on Collision and Crime Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety approach identifies opportunities where a single enforcement deployment can achieve multiple objectives: reduce collision and crime rates. Previous research focused on modeling both events separately despite evidence suggesting a high correlation. Additionally, there is a limited understanding of the impact of Mobile Automated Enforcement (MAE) on crime or the impact of changing a deployment strategy on collision and crime dates. For this reason, this study categorized MAE deployment into three different clusters. A random-parameter multivariate Tobit model was developed under the Bayesian framework to understand the impact of changing the deployment on collision and crime rates in a neighborhood. Firstly, the results of the analysis quantified the high correlation between collision and crime rates (0.86) which suggest that locations with high collision rates also coincide with locations with high crime rates. The results also demonstrated the safety effectiveness (i.e., reduced crime and collision rates) increased for the clusters that are associated with an increased enforcement duration at a neighborhood level. Understanding how changing the deployment strategy at a macro-level affects collision and crime rates provides enforcement agencies with the opportunity to maximize the efficiency of their existing resources.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".