MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W139647553

Challenge for Rehabilitation Counselors: Serving Individuals with Disabilities Involved in Gang Activity

2014· article· en· W139647553 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paige N. Dunlap, Valerie E. D. Russell

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of rehabilitation · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueYouth Development and Social Support
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCriminologyJuvenile delinquencyLaw enforcementEthnic groupJurisdictionPsychologyJuvenile courtCriminal justicePolitical scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

When street gang was first thought to be a major issue of concern within United States, issue was considered relevant only to major, urban environments (Hauck & Peterke, 2010; U.S. Attorney General, 2008). More recently, however, attention has been directed toward spread of gang to suburban and rural regions (Hauck & Peterke, 2010; Osgood & Chambers, 2000; U.S. Attorney General, 2008). As reported by National Gang Center (2009), distribution of gangs nationwide was as follows: 44.4% in larger cities; 29.1% in smaller cities; 21.4% in suburban counties; and 5.4% in rural counties. Further exploration into ethnicity of individuals in gangs shows that in 2008, 50.2% were Hispanic or Latino; 31.8% were Black or African American; 10.5% were White; and 7.6% identified as (National Gang Center). This serves as a reminder that no areas or ethnicities are immune to impact of gang violence. In fact, research illustrates increasing gang problem in United States (Burch & Chemers, 1997; National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011; Okamoto, 2001). For example, in a survey conducted by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 49% of law enforcement agencies responded that gang activity in their jurisdiction was getting worse (Burch & Chemers, 1997). A similar perception was also noted more recently in 2011 Gang Threat Assessment. The assessment reported a sizable increase in gang membership and collaboration with other gangs or criminal enterprises to conduct larger scale criminal activities (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011). Specifically, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011) estimates that there are approximately 33,000 gangs, encompassing 1.4 million active members in United States. Furthermore, these gangs are responsible for approximately 48% of violent crimes and 90% of many other crimes, not considered violent (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011). Important to remember is that not all violent crime assaults were sustained by random victims of gang violence. Interestingly, Peterson, Taylor, and Esbensen (2004) note that in gangs can come from a variety of sources including other members of same gang in form of beat ins and violations. This is known as intragang conflict (Hunt & Laidler, 2001). For example, a member of a gang who violates rules of their own gang may experience violent retaliation from other members within same gang (Peterson, Taylor, & Esbensen). In other instances, gang rivalry between competing gangs may also result in negative consequences and injuries to members (Egly & Howell, 2011). Intergang conflict, also known as gang-on-gang has been shown to result from defense of gang's reputation, trespassing, retaliation, and gangs defending their identity (Egly & Howell). These violent acts can result in disabling conditions (Cook & Ludwid, 2000). However, literature fails to cover rehabilitation outcomes of gang involved populations in aftermath of injury. Intergang conflict is a form of interpersonal violence. Historically, World Health Organization (2002), provided a widely used comprehensive definition of interpersonal which encompasses inflicted, generally outside home, by an unrelated individual whom victim may or may not know for the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual ... that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation (p. 4). The Canadian Red Cross (2012) elaborates on this definition by stating that encompasses child abuse, family violence, gender-based violence, bullying and harassment, elder abuse, and community such as gang violence (pg. 8). Interpersonal involving gangs has been known to lead to victim's death (National Spinal Cord Injury Statistics Center, 2003; Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,065
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,910

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,309
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of rehabilitationMême sujetYouth Development and Social SupportTravaux en français237 207