Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article summarizes some of the findings of research done on the relinquishing of a criminal career. It is based on about twenty interviews, carried out between July and November 1984, with multirecedivist ex-criminals who had abandoned their criminal careers for at least five years prior to the study. We isolated the factors that dissuaded them from continuing this way of life as well as others that caused them to adopt a more conventional lifestyle. It is a question of the difficulties connected with a criminal way of life — whether it be with one's criminal colleagues, rival gangs, informers, or the police, lawyers and the courts. There follows a series of bad experiences concerning prison life : the accumulation of sentences and years of prison, the living conditions, problems with the officers and guards, the presence of other inmates. But there are also positive things one discovers in prison whether it be new knowledge, new responsibilities or the help of people outside, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or the chaplains or at the emotional level, of a wife or mate. We see, based on these factors, some of the difficulties that the ex-criminal must face if he wants to persevere in following a conventional lifestyle.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".