MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389109428 · doi:10.32866/001c.90056

Patterns in Bike Theft and Recovery

2023· article· en· W4389109428 on OpenAlex
Achituv Cohen, Trisalyn Nelson, Dillon T. Fitch, Elizabeth Schattle, Seth Herr, Moreno Zanotto, Meghan Winters

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFindings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Identity theftComputer securityInternet privacyBusinessComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited research on the patterns of bicycle theft and recovery makes it difficult to tackle the issue of bicycle theft. Our goal is to generate knowledge that can reduce the negative impacts of bicycle theft by better understanding patterns in bicycle theft and recovery. We analyzed data from a North American survey on bicycle theft conditions and recovery circumstances. Results indicate that the reported stolen bicycles were usually locked (59%), and stolen overnight (41%) from enclosed spaces (28%). 15% of stolen bicycles are recovered. Reporting the stolen bicycle on a variety of channels could increase the chance to recover them.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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