MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187289091

Development of Hotzone Identification Models for Simultaneous Crime and Collision Reduction

2019· article· en· W3187289091 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seun Daniel Oluwajana

Bibliographic record

VenueYorkSpace (York University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsAkaike information criterionCollisionBayes' theoremResidualNegative binomial distributionBayesian probabilityMean squared errorMathematicsEconometricsGoodness of fitPoisson distributionComputer scienceAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research contributes to developing macro-level crime and collision prediction models using a new method designed to handle the problem of spatial dependency and over-dispersion in zonal data. \n \nA geographically weighted Poisson regression (GWPR) model and geographically weighted negative binomial regression (GWNBR) model were used for crime and collision prediction. Five years (2009-2013) of crime, collision, traffic, socio-demographic, road inventory, and land use data for Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada were used. The need for geographically weighted models became clear when Moran's I local indicator test showed statistically significant levels of spatial dependency. A bandwidth is a required input for geographically weighted regression models. This research tested two bandwidths: 1) fixed Gaussian and 2) adaptive bi-square bandwidth and investigated which was better suited to the study's database. \n \nThree crime models were developed: violent, non-violent and total crimes. Three collision models were developed: fatal-injury, property damage only and total collisions. The models were evaluated using seven goodness of fit (GOF) tests: 1) Akaike Information Criterion, 2) Bayesian Information Criteria, 3) Mean Square Error, 4) Mean Square Prediction Error, 5) Mean Prediction Bias, and 6) Mean Absolute Deviation. As the seven GOF tests did not produce consistent results, the cumulative residual (CURE) plot was explored. \n \nThe CURE plots showed that the GWPR and GWNBR model using fixed Gaussian bandwidth was the better approach for predicting zonal level crimes and collisions in Regina. The GWNBR model has the important advantage that can be used with the empirical Bayes technique to further enhance prediction accuracy. \n \nThe GWNBR crime and collision prediction models were used to identify crime and collision hotzones for simultaneous crime and collision reduction in Regina. The research used total collision and total crimes to demonstrate the determination of priority zones for focused law enforcement in Regina. Four enforcement priority zones were identified. These zones cover only 1.4% of the Citys area but account for 10.9% of total crimes and 5.8% of total collisions. The research advances knowledge by examining hotzones at a macro-level and suggesting zones where enforcement and planning for enforcement are likely to be most effective and efficient.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYorkSpace (York University)Same topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207