MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131093500 · doi:10.1177/0093854802029004005

The Future of Criminal Attitudes Research and Practice

2002· article· en· W2131093500 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)PsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisStructural equation modelingExploratory factor analysisDimension (graph theory)Social psychologyCriminologySample (material)Oblique caseConstruct validityPsychometricsClinical psychologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to explore the underlying dimension(s) of the criminal attitude construct. Exploratory factor analyses using an oblique rotation method were conducted separately on the subscales of the Criminal Sentiments Scale–Modified among a sample of 381 violent male offenders. These procedures yielded four factors reflecting generic criminal attitudes, specific attitudes about the law, generic rationalizations consistent with criminal subcultures, and criminally oriented self-views (i.e., a criminal self-concept). Confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling found these factors to be relatively robust. Supplemental analyses revealed the factors were linked to criminal conduct outcome criteria. These results are discussed in terms of potential future theory, research, and practice of the criminal attitude construct.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.217 · 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