An Offenders-Offenses Shared Component Spatial Model for Identifying Shared and Specific Hotspots of Offenders and Offenses: A Case Study of Juvenile Delinquents and Violent Crimes in the Greater Toronto Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We attempted to apply the Bayesian shared component spatial modeling (SCSM) for the identification of hotspots from two (offenders and offenses) instead of one (offenders or offenses) variables and developed three risk surfaces for (1) common or shared by both offenders and offenses; (2) specific to offenders, and (3) specific to offenses. Methods: We applied SCSM to examine the joint spatial distributions of juvenile delinquents (offenders) and violent crime (offenses) in the York Region of the Greater Toronto Area at the dissemination area level. The spatial autocorrelation, overdispersion, and latent covariates were adjusted by spatially structured and unstructured random effect terms in the model. We mapped the posterior means of the estimated shared and specific risks for identifying the three risk surfaces and types of hotspots. Results: Results suggest that about 50% and 25% of the relative risks of juvenile delinquents and violent crimes, respectively, could be explained by the shared component of offenders and offenses. The spatially structured terms attributed to 48% and 24% of total variations of the delinquents and violent crimes, respectively. Contrastingly, the unstructured random covariates influenced 3% of total variations of the juvenile delinquents and 51% for violent crimes. Conclusions: The Bayesian SCSM presented in this study identifies shared and specific hotspots of juvenile delinquents and violent crime. The method can be applied to other kinds of offenders and offenses and provide new insights into the clusters of high risks that are due to both offenders and offenses or due to offenders or offenses only.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".