MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067800510 · doi:10.1177/0269758013513659

Twenty volumes of victimology

2013· article· en· W2067800510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanna Shapland, Jennifer Sloan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Victimology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictimologyPoison controlCriminologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPolitical scienceChild abuseMedical emergencyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0470.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of VictimologySame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207