Comparing US state resident IQ, socioeconomic status, and racial-ethnic composition as predictors of state violent crime rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the extent to which state resident IQ, socioeconomic status (SES), and five racial-ethnic composition variables can independently account for differences in violent crime rates across the 48 contiguous American states using correlation and multiple regression strategies focused on 2019. Pearson correlations indicated that state violent crime rates significantly correlated − .69 with IQ, − .54 with SES, .39 with a racial-ethnic diversity composite, − .52 with White population percent, .30 with Black population percent, and .39 with Hispanic population percent. One set of five sequential multiple regression equations indicated that a state racial-ethnic diversity composite, White population percent, and Black population percent, still were significant predictors of state violent crime rates with socioeconomic status controlled. A second set of five equations showed none of the five racial-ethnic variables was a significant predictor of crime rates with IQ controlled. A third set of five equations showed that neither SES nor any of the racial-ethnic variables was a significant predictor with IQ controlled, and that IQ remained a significant predictor with SES and each of the five racial-ethnic variables in turn controlled. The findings persisted with multicollinearity and spatial autocorrelation considered. The results demonstrate the large and predominant negative relation of state resident IQ to state violent crime rates and its capacity to eliminate the relations of SES and racial-ethnic variables to those crime rates. Generally, the results underline the importance of evaluating potential crime rate predictors in a multiple regression model rather than testing their predictive capacities only as single variables.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".