Examining the Boost Account for Repeat and Near Repeat Burglary in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests that previously burglarized targets, and targets located near such locations, are at an increased risk of being victimized. However, this elevated risk is only temporary and appears to subside over time. The boost account is one theory that attempts to describe the occurrence of repeat, and near repeat, burglaries. The boost account suggests that these burglaries are the result of the same offender returning to burglarize a dwelling that they have successfully burglarized in the past, or one near the previously victimized target. In the current study, we first determined the repeat and near repeat space-time clustering of solved residential burglaries committed in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, from 2007 to 2008. The results indicate that solved Edmonton burglaries do cluster together in time and space (i.e., residences within 700 m of a previous burgled target are at an increased risk for a period of 7 days). We also investigated whether repeat and near repeat burglaries in the dataset were more likely than distant burglaries to be committed by the same offender. It was found that serial offending by the same offender offers a viable rationale for much of the repeat and near repeat burglaries committed in Edmonton from 2007 to 2008. The practical implications of these results, as well as some limitations and directions for future research, are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".