MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378227547 · doi:10.3390/su15118524

Trivariate Kernel Density Estimation of Spatiotemporal Crime Events with Case Study for Lithuania

2023· article· en· W4378227547 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Govorov, Giedrė Beconytė, Gennady Gienko

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKernel density estimationEstimationComputer scienceKernel (algebra)Density estimationPoint pattern analysisPoint (geometry)GeographyProbability density functionData miningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsCommon spatial patternEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the results of the investigation of the applicability of spatiotemporal kernel density estimation (KDE) methods for density mapping of violent crime in Lithuania. Spatiotemporal crime research helps to understand and control specific types of crime, thereby contributing to Sustainable Development Goals. The target dataset contained 135,989 records of the events registered by the police of Lithuania from 2015–2018 that were classified as violent. The research focused on choosing appropriate KDE functions and their parameters for modeling the spatiotemporal point pattern of this particular type of crime. The aim was to estimate density, mass, and intensity function(s) so that they can be used in further confirmatory spatial modeling. The application-driven objective was to obtain reliable and practically interpretable KDE surfaces of crime events. Several options for improving and extending the investigated KDE methods are demonstrated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207