Homicide rates are spatially associated with built environment and socio-economic factors: a study in the neighbourhoods of Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Homicide rate is associated with a large variety of factors and therefore unevenly distributed over time and space. This study aims to explore homicide patterns and their spatial associations with different socioeconomic and built-environment conditions in 140 neighbourhoods of the city of Toronto, Canada. METHODS: A homicide dataset covering the years 2012 to 2021 and neighbourhood-based indicators were analysed using spatial techniques such as Kernel Density Estimation, Global/Local Moran's I and Kulldorff's SatScan spatio-temporal methodology. Geographically weighted regression (GWR) and multi-scale GWR (MGWR) were used to analyse the spatially varying correlations between the homicide rate and independent variables. The latter was particularly suitable for manifested spatial variations between explanatory variables and the homicide rate and it also identified spatial non-stationarities in this connection. RESULTS: of the MGWR was 0.53, representing a 4.35 and 3.74% increase from that in the linear regression and GWR models, respectively. Spatial and spatio-temporal high-risk areas were found to be significantly clustered in downtown and the north-western parts of the city. Some variables (e.g., the population density, material deprivation, the density of commercial establishments and the density of large buildings) were significantly associated with the homicide rate in different spatial ways. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that homicide rates were clustered over time and space in certain areas of the city. Socioeconomic and the built environment characteristics of some neighbourhoods were found to be associated with high homicide rates but these factors were different for each neighbourhood.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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".