Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of crime prediction, one of the most important technologies in social computing, is to extract useful information from many existing criminal records to predict the next process-related crime. It can aid the police in obtaining criminal information and warn the public to be vigilant in certain areas. With the rapid growth of big data, the Internet of Things, and other technologies, as well as the increasing use of artificial intelligence in forecasting models, crime prediction models based on deep learning techniques are accelerating. Therefore, it is necessary to classify the existing crime prediction algorithms and compare in depth the attributes and conditions that play an essential role in the analysis of crime prediction algorithms. Existing crime prediction methods can be roughly divided into two categories: those based on conventional machine learning and those based on contemporary deep learning. This survey analyses the fundamental theories and procedures. The most frequently used data sets are then enumerated, and the fundamental procedures of various algorithms are also analyzed in this paper. In light of the insufficient scale of existing data in this field, the ambiguity of data types used to predict crimes, and the absence of public data sets that have a significant impact on the research of algorithm models, this survey proposes the construction of a machine learning-based big data research model to address these issues. Future researchers who will enter this field are provided with a guide to the direction of future research development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".