MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044902664 · doi:10.7202/017215ar

Les auteurs de vols à main armée à Montréal : une typologie empirique

2005· article· en· W2044902664 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sylvie Bellot

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyPolitical scienceCriminologyHumanitiesHistorySociologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a typology of armed robbers in Montreal, the result of a study of 39 authors of armed robbery. After a brief outline of the theoretical and methodological model used in this study, each type of armed robber is presented as follows : 1) the multireci-divist who is characterized by a large number of armed robberies, 2) the professional whose criminal activity is planned and organized, 3) the intensive robber who commits armed robberies for a very short period of time and 4) the occasional robber who commits very few armed robberies but many other crimes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.465
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.072 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207