Violence, vandalism, and theft among Alberta youth : a reconceptualization of the general theory of crime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the number of studies conducted regarding violence amongst youth, there is still much to be learned. The present study was designed in an attempt to better understand the nature of delinquent adolescent behaviour. The main objectives of this study are as follows: to understand the pattern and distribution of delinquent behaviour, including violence, vandalism, and theft among Lethbridge, Alberta's high school population, to identify possible factors that may play a role in one's likelihood of engaging in such behaviours, and finally, to contribute to Micheal Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi's (G&H) 'General Theory of Crime ' (1990) by reconceptuahzing the concept of self-control. The present study includes 182 youth from two Lethbridge public high schools. Of the 182 respondents, 84 are female, and 98 are male. The youth involved in this study range from 15 to 19 years of age. Through the use of a questionnaire, a number of key variables are addressed. These variables are: empathy, impulse control, social bonds, and their relationship with violence, theft, and vandalism. The results of this study show that empathy and impulse control are significant
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".