MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107566646 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2014.03.23

A Comparative Analysis of Human Trafficking: The United States of America (USA) and the Republic of South Africa (RSA)

2014· article· en· W2107566646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark M. Lanier, C. Thomas Farrell, Christiaan Bezuidenhout

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaw enforcementHuman traffickingCriminologyPolitical scienceEnforcementPublic healthImmigrationHuman rightsCriminal justiceEconomic JusticeState (computer science)LawHuman servicesPublic administrationSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human trafficking is a serious global problem that transcends international borders and disciplinary boundaries. It presents a conglomeration of problems generally dealt with by public health, criminal justice, social service and immigration agencies. Victim advocates state that millions are victimized each year. The data suggest that law enforcement agencies perceive human trafficking to be of greater, or equal, concern for the myriad of social institutions and participants affected by human trafficking than for law enforcement, itself. Policy recommendations are to refocus the law enforcement response - which may include various approaches that can simultaneously benefit public health - by incorporating an Epidemiological Criminology framework to help to guide the development of more systematic and integrative insight into the world of human trafficking.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207