Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider potential criminal law responses to the global challenge of “identity crime”. In particular, it focuses on a specific offence of “identity theft”. It begins with a discussion of the meaning of “identity” in the context of modern transactions, before defining “identity crime” and related terms. Legal responses are then considered before turning to the importance of harmonisation. The transnational nature of modern identity crimes makes it essential that law enforcement agencies not only have suitable offences at their disposal but also the frameworks to facilitate international cooperation. Design/methodology/approach – Given the increasingly transnational and organized nature of modern identity crime, this paper adopts a comparative approach. It draws upon provisions from Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA. It also looks at responses to identity crime at the regional and international level. Findings – Although there is currently no international instrument which specifically and comprehensively addresses identity theft, it is argued that there is an urgent need for further international discussion as to the desirability and form of identity theft provisions. While international agreement may not be reached, such discussions are important in assisting countries to develop appropriate legal frameworks and capacity to address the modern fraud environment. Originality/value – It is hoped that this paper will contribute to, and facilitate, important ongoing discussions as to the most effective ways in which to tackle identity crime at the national and international levels.
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 | 0.032 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".