Identifying seasonal spatial patterns of crime in a small northern city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To explore spatial patterns of crime in a small northern city, and assess the degree of similarity in these patterns across seasons. Methods Calls for police service frequently associated with crime (theft, break and enter, domestic dispute, assault, and neighbor disputes) were acquired for a five year time span (2015–2019) for the city of North Bay, Ontario, Canada (population 50,396). Exploratory data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and a kernel density mapping technique. Andresen’s spatial point pattern test (SPPT) was then used to assess the degree of similarity between the seasonal patterns (spring, summer, autumn, winter) for each call type at two different spatial scales (dissemination area and census tract). Results Exploratory data analysis of crime concentration at street segments showed that calls are generally more dispersed through the city in the warmer seasons of spring and summer. Kernel density mapping also shows increases in the intensity of hotspots at these times, but little overall change in pattern. The SPPT does find some evidence for seasonal differences in crime pattern across the city as a whole, specifically for thefts and break and enters. These differences are focused on the downtown core, as well as the outlying rural areas of the city. Conclusions For the various crime types examined, preliminary analysis, kernel density mapping, and the SPPT found differences in crime pattern consistent with the routine activities theory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".