Traditionally, criminology has usually been seen as equal parts sociology and psychology of crime (with a bit of law sprinkled in). But over the past 40 years much more attention has rightly been paid to the geography, economics and engineering aspects of crime, too.

That depends on what you’re looking for. Are you interested in people who study the costs of crime, people who study the wider economic consequences of crime, or economists who study crime more generally?

And the use of 'homicide' in crime statistics in England & Wales isn't in the slightest bit new. For example the official annual Home Office crime statistics have a chapter on homicide going back at least as far as the 1990s, e.g. this one from 1991: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c28...

It’s often difficult to distinguish a murder from a manslaughter until the investigation finishes and the case goes to court. So to provide up-to-date statistics, it’s fairly standard for published stats to be for homicide (i.e. murder + manslaughter + infanticide).

I'm sure someone else has suggested this, but it's time for mandatory DOIs in reference lists. This will make it easier to identify hallucinated references

Personally I won’t be switching. The public funds university research so that it can be used in the real world, and I’m not going to put any barriers in the way of that.

Creative Commons has a useful page on how CC licences apply to LLMs at creativecommons.org/using-cc-lic...

Although it’s worth noting that copyright only protects text etc, rather than ideas, so an LLM reproducing an idea presumably wouldn’t breach a CC-BY licence.

Sure, which is one reason I specifically spoke about CC-BY. Do you know if the preprints used in the study you highlighted were released under open licences or licences that prohibited reuse?

I suspect many researchers releasing preprints under CC-BY don’t take the time to understand what they’re giving people a licence to do.

(And I say that as someone who very much thinks all versions of papers should be CC-BY licensed.)

Yes, it seems strange for authors to release their work under a licence that explicitly allows others to build upon that work in any medium or format, and for those same authors to then complain when other researchers make use of those rights. Unless I’m missing some restriction in CC-BY?

I agree that the scientific publishing model is fundamentally broken.

But is the inverse of ease of reading really a mark of scientific quality? I’m not sure a paper being hard to read is necessarily mark of high quality – it’s often a mark of muddled thinking!

Plenty of US voters would no-doubt be horrified by the US annexing Greenland and burning a long-time ally. But I suspect Republicans in Congress would (accurately) feel that very few of those voters were going to vote for them next time in any case.

I think that is wildly optimistic.

Whether he’s impeached or not doesn’t have anything to do with what he does, it’s only about whether or not Republicans in Congress think impeachment would help them politically or not. And I just can’t see many US voters being swayed by what happens in Greenland.

Even at UCL I don’t think we’d go so far as to compare King’s to a war zone!

@criminologist.bsky.social