MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066853460 · doi:10.1177/0032885511404382

Frank Tannenbaum: The Making of a Convict Criminologist

2011· article· en· W2066853460 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew G. Yeager

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prison Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictPrisonSociologyCriminologyCommissionLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frank Tannenbaum (1893-1969) is best known in criminology for his depiction of the dramatization of evil, an early precursor of labeling theory which caught on in the 1960s. Less well known is the fact that Tannenbaum was a convict criminologist. In 1914, he served a year on Blackwell’s Island (New York City) for labor disturbances involving a group of 200 unemployed and hungry men on the lower west side of Manhattan. At that time, Tannenbaum, who was only 21, was a fledgling member of the International Workers of the World (IWW). In 1922, Tannenbaum published Wall Shadows (Tannenbaum, 1922b) on his experiences with the American penal system. He served as the official reporter to the Wickersham Commission’s study on Penal Institutions, Probation and Parole (Volume 9) in 1931. Two years later, he published a biography on prison reformer Thomas Mott Osborne, a former warden of Sing Sing prison. This article discusses the career of Frank Tannenbaum as an early American convict criminologist, focusing on his personal papers in the custody of the Butler Library at Columbia University.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Prison JournalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207