A bayesian shared component spatial modeling approach for identifying the geographic pattern of local associations: a case study of young offenders and violent crimes in Greater Toronto Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background setting: Traditional spatial or non-spatial regression techniques require individual variables to be defined as dependent and independent variables, often assuming a unidirectional and (global) linear relationship between the variables under study. This research studies the Bayesian shared component spatial (BSCS) modeling as an alternative approach to identifying local associations between two or more variables and their spatial patterns. Methods: The variables to be studied, young offenders (YO) and violent crimes (VC), are treated as (multiple) outcomes in the BSCS model. Separate non-BSCS models that treat YO as the outcome variable and VC as the independent variable have also been developed. Results are compared in terms of model fit, risk estimates, and identification of hotspot areas. Results: Compared to the traditional non-BSCS models, the BSCS models fitted the data better and identified a strong spatial association between YO and VC. Using the BSCS technique allowed both the YO and VC to be modeled as outcome variables, assuming common data-generating processes that are influenced by a set of socioeconomic covariates. The BSCS technique offered smooth and easy mapping of the identified association, with the maps displaying the common (shared) and separate (individual) hotspots of YO and VC. Conclusions: The proposed method can transform existing association analyses from methods requiring inputs as dependent and independent variables to outcome variables only and shift the reliance on regression coefficients to probability risk maps for characterizing (local) associations between the outcomes. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40163-024-00235-5.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".