MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008627342 · doi:10.1080/01639620903004861

Labeling and the Adoption of a Deviant Status

2010· article· en· W2008627342 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeviant Behavior · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn (typography)PsychologySocial psychologyIdentity (music)Social identity theoryMarital statusSociologySocial groupConnection (principal bundle)DemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study explores the role of labeling in the process by which individuals come to perceive their personal indebtedness as indicative of a deviant status. Particular attention is paid to the respective roles one's informal social network and self-help groups play in promoting the transformation from a non-deviant to deviant status. In-depth interviews with a convenience and snowball sample of 46 members of Debtors Anonymous (DA), was supplemented with contextual data from a DA newsletter and other print materials. The theoretical implications for both labeling theory and identity change processes are discussed. This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Canadian Qualitative Research Conference at the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Notes ∗Denotes the number of other 12-step groups respondents reported belonging to before joining Debtors Anonymous. Column 1 = Case # of female participants. Column 2 = Marital Status of Female Participants (M = Married, S = Single, D = Divorced). Column 3 = Nature of Relationship between female participant and "labeler." Column 4 = "Labeler" had firsthand experience with twelve-step groups. Column 5 = "Labelee" had prior experience with twelve-step groups. Column 6 = Case # of male participants. Column 7 = Marital Status of Male Participants. Column 8 = Nature of Relationship between male participant and "labeler." Column 9 = "Labeler" had firsthand experience with twelve-step groups. Column 10 = "Labelee" had prior experience with twelve-step groups. ∗Denotes missing data; N/A = Not Applicable. 1These statements also are an example of "either/or alternatives" (Ebaugh 1988:132). Additional informationNotes on contributorsTerrell A. Hayes TERRELL A. HAYES is an Associate Professor of sociology at High Point University in High Point, North Carolina. He received his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in 1996. His principal research interests include theories of deviance, crime and community development, and consumer culture. He is currently conducting in-depth interviews with former drug dealers participating in the High Point Police Department's nationally acclaimed drug initiative.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it