MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211925674 · doi:10.1017/9781108954143

Whose 'Eyes on the Street' Control Crime?

2021· book· en· W3211925674 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon J. Linning, John E. Eck

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingCultural criminologyPerspective (graphical)Element (criminal law)PoliticsCrime controlProperty (philosophy)Social controlMacroOrder (exchange)CriminologySociologyControl (management)Power (physics)Political scienceSocial scienceLawEconomicsManagementPsychologyCriminal justiceSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jane Jacobs coined the phrase 'eyes on the street' to depict those who maintain order in cities. Most criminologists assume these eyes belong to residents. In this Element we show that most of the eyes she described belonged to shopkeepers and property owners. They, along with governments, wield immense power through property ownership and regulation. From her work, we propose a Neo-Jacobian perspective to reframe how crime is connected to neighborhood function through deliberate decision-making at places. It advances three major turning points for criminology. This includes turns from: 1. residents to place managers as the primary source of informal social control; 2. ecological processes to outsiders' deliberate actions that create crime opportunities; and 3. a top-down macro- to bottom-up micro-spatial explanation of crime patterns. This perspective demonstrates the need for criminology to integrate further into economics, political science, urban planning, and history to improve crime control policies.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207