Cited by 46Crime Patterns and InterventionsPolicing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and Penology

Building collective action at crime hot spots: Findings from a randomized field experiment

Weisburd, David, Gill, Charlotte, Wooditch, Alese, Barritt, William, Murphy, Jody·2021·Journal of Experimental Criminology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11292-019-09401-1

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weisburd, D., Gill, C., Wooditch, A., Barritt, W., & Murphy, J.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • Temple University (US)
Corresponding author
Weisburd, David
Venue
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Published
2020-01-11
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
161-191
ISSN
  • 1572-8315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3750
OpenAlex
W2999884979
Cited by
46
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Criminology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bureau of Justice Assistance (2013-DB-BX-0030)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
collective action, crime hotspots, collective efficacy, police legitimacy, fear of crime, community collaboration, patrol officers, crime reduction, community policing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review