Self-Control, Child Effects, and Informal Social Control: A Direct Test of the Primacy of Sociogenic Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often assumed that self-control and informal social control are compatible with their direct influence on adolescent misconduct. It is also frequently assumed that informal social control theory can account for ontogenetic influences, like self-control, and sociogenic influences in a manner consistent with both perspectives. And finally it is assumed that processes of informal social control have been shown to have the strongest effect on adolescent delinquency while at the same time mediating ontogenetic influences like self-control. These misconceptions can be traced to the original presentation of informal social control theory. This paper represents the first step of a direct re-examination of the role of informal social control in the genesis of adolescent delinquency as presented in Sampson and Laub's (1995) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. The results show that the importance (i.e., primacy and mediating power) of informal social control in explaining the emergence of adolescent delinquency was overstated in Crime in the Making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".