MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023574568 · doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.915673

An Exploration of Stigma in the Lives of Sex Offenders and Heroin Abusers

2014· article· en· W2023574568 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
KeywordsHeroinPsychologyStigma (botany)CriminologyPrisonSocial distancePsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractResearch was conducted on variations and commonalities of sexual offenders and heroin abusers and how they manage stigma in their everyday lives. Interviews with 13 sex offenders (SOs) and 44 heroin abusers (HAs) were conducted in New York City. Results suggest that both SOs and HAs disclose or conceal their stigmatized status based on their relationship to others and the situations in which they anticipate social condemnation. Both groups have formed intra-group hierarchies based on status, where child molesters and heroin abusers receive the most disdain. Some heroin abusers manage their stigma by engaging in behavior that we term redemptive passing, in which stigmatized individuals attempt to pass as non-stigmatized through deceptive means in order to make amends for prior harms they have caused. The stigmatization of sex offenders and heroin abusers has important implications for health, as members of these groups are less likely to seek treatment in order to distance themselves from their stigmatizing status. Notes1 New York State assigns SO risk levels according to circumstances of the offense, criminal history, and lifestyle. Only police can access information for level 1 sex offenders, who are required to register for 20 years. The registry information for level 2 and level 3 sex offenders is available to the public via on-line registries, and these individuals are required to register their information at least annually for the remainder of their lives.Additional informationNotes on contributorsR. Terry FurstR. TERRY FURST received an M.A. in sociology from City College (CUNY) and a Ph.D. in sociology from the Graduate Faculty, The New School for Social Research. He served on the faculties of the College of Staten Island, the University of Alberta, and New York University. He has also worked as Research Associate at the National Drug Research Institutes (NDRI) and is currently an Assistant Professor on the anthropology faculty at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY). His focus over the last three decades has been on ethnographic research on drug abusers subcultures, illegal drug markets, sex workers, street drug dealers, the transmission of HIV among injecting drug users, the evaluation of street outreach intervention workers, the adulteration of heroin in New York City, and the diffusion of heroin in the mid-Hudson region of New York State.Douglas N. EvansDOUGLAS N. EVANS is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Mercy College and a Visiting Scholar and Project Director with the Research & Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. His work focuses on criminal stigma, offender reentry, and community-based programs for offenders and the formerly incarcerated. Doug earned his Ph.D. at Indiana University–Bloomington.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.275 · 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