Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Another milestone has been reached in the development of victimology.’ This is how the first edition of the International Review of Victimology began in 1989, edited by John Freeman and Leslie Sebba. Twenty-four years later, another milestone has been reached in the form of the 20th volume of the journal. In that time, much has changed in the world of victimology, yet other issues have remained. Freeman and Sebba raised key questions in their first editorial: ‘Is victimology a sociopolitical movement whose objective is the pursuit of victims’ rights, or rather an academic activity concerned ‘‘merely’’ with the pursuit of knowledge?’ ‘Should a victimological journal serve as a forum designed to meet the needs of persons engaged in victim services, or of academic researchers?’ Finally – the hoary old chestnut – ‘Is victimology concerned exclusively with victims of crime, or also with other categories of victimisation?’ Such questions still rear their heads today. The pioneers of victimology those 20 years ago were both academics and practitioners. Although criminology, one of its parent disciplines, had made a clear distinction between academic research, practice and policy making, victimology then was yet to do so. Today, in all social policy areas, the relationships between research, practice and policy are still very contested. The paths whereby the results of research reach and influence both practice and policy are often tangled and beset with minefields and dead ends, just as Rock (1986, 1990) described for Canada and England & Wales. Yet we have moved on. Victimological research and theory have acquired a distinct identity and operate according to academic research methods and ethics – but they both study and also influence practice and policy. Victimology has not become solely the preserve of pressure groups, but equally those research ethics include care for victims and often are illuminated by passion and empathy. Twenty volumes on, Sebba and Berenblum return in this issue to the scope of victimology, supplemented by empirical data into the use of the term ‘victim’ in academic articles between 1960 and 2012, and considering the historical development of ‘victimology’. The issues concerning
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 0.039 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".