IMPORTANCEEvery day in the United States, more than 200 people are murdered or assaulted with a firearm. Little research has considered the role of interpersonal ties in the pathways through which gun violence spreads.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the extent to which the people who will become subjects of gun violence can be predicted by modeling gun violence as an epidemic that is transmitted between individuals through social interactions.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study was an epidemiological analysis of a social network of individuals who were arrested during an 8-year period in Chicago, Illinois, with connections between people who were arrested together for the same offense. Modeling of the spread of gunshot violence over the network was assessed using a probabilistic contagion model that assumed individuals were subject to risks associated with being arrested together, in addition to demographic factors, such as age, sex, and neighborhood residence. Participants represented a network of 138 163 individuals who were arrested between January 1, 2006, and March 31, 2014 (29.9% of all individuals arrested in Chicago during this period), 9773 of whom were subjects of gun violence. Individuals were on average 27 years old at the midpoint of the study, predominantly male (82.0%) and black (75.6%), and often members of a gang (26.2%). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESExplanation and prediction of becoming a subject of gun violence (fatal or nonfatal) using epidemic models based on person-to-person transmission through a social network.RESULTS Social contagion accounted for 63.1% of the 11 123 gunshot violence episodes; subjects of gun violence were shot on average 125 days after their infector (the person most responsible for exposing the subject to gunshot violence). Some subjects of gun violence were shot more than once. Models based on both social contagion and demographics performed best; when determining the 1.0% of people (n = 1382) considered at highest risk to be shot each day, the combined model identified 728 subjects of gun violence (6.5%) compared with 475 subjects of gun violence (4.3%) for the demographics model (53.3% increase) and 589 subjects of gun violence (5.3%) for the social contagion model (23.6% increase).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Gunshot violence follows an epidemic-like process of social contagion that is transmitted through networks of people by social interactions. Violence prevention efforts that account for social contagion, in addition to demographics, have the potential to prevent more shootings than efforts that focus on only demographics.
Termites construct complex mounds that are orders of magnitude larger than any individual and fulfil a variety of functional roles. Yet the processes through which these mounds are built, and by which the insects organize their efforts, remain poorly understood. The traditional understanding focuses on stigmergy, a form of indirect communication in which actions that change the environment provide cues that influence future work. Termite construction has long been thought to be organized via a putative 'cement pheromone': a chemical added to deposited soil that stimulates further deposition in the same area, thus creating a positive feedback loop whereby coherent structures are built up. To investigate the detailed mechanisms and behaviours through which termites self-organize the early stages of mound construction, we tracked the motion and behaviour of major workers from two species in experimental arenas. Rather than a construction process focused on accumulation of depositions, as models based on cement pheromone would suggest, our results indicated that the primary organizing mechanisms were based on excavation. Digging activity was focused on a small number of excavation sites, which in turn provided templates for soil deposition. This behaviour was mediated by a mechanism of aggregation, with termites being more likely to join in the work at an excavation site as the number of termites presently working at that site increased. Statistical analyses showed that this aggregation mechanism was a response to active digging, distinct from and unrelated to putative chemical cues that stimulate deposition. Agent-based simulations quantitatively supported the interpretation that the early stage of de novo construction is primarily organized by excavation and aggregation activity rather than by stigmergic deposition.
Efforts to promote equitable public policy with algorithms appear to be fundamentally constrained by the “impossibility of fairness” (an incompatibility between mathematical definitions of fairness). This technical limitation raises a central question about algorithmic fairness: How can computer scientists and policymakers support equitable policy reforms with algorithms? In this article, I argue that promoting justice with algorithms requires reforming the methodology of algorithmic fairness. First, I diagnose the problems of the current methodology for algorithmic fairness, which I call “formal algorithmic fairness.” Because formal algorithmic fairness restricts analysis to isolated decision-making procedures, it leads to the impossibility of fairness and to models that exacerbate oppression despite appearing “fair.” Second, I draw on theories of substantive equality from law and philosophy to propose an alternative methodology, which I call “substantive algorithmic fairness.” Because substantive algorithmic fairness takes a more expansive scope of analysis, it enables an escape from the impossibility of fairness and provides a rigorous guide for alleviating injustice with algorithms. In sum, substantive algorithmic fairness presents a new direction for algorithmic fairness: away from formal mathematical models of “fair” decision-making and toward substantive evaluations of whether and how algorithms can promote justice in practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.