GANGS, GROUPS, AND DELINQUENCY: DOES MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL MATTER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A consistent finding in delinquency research is that gang membership is strongly associated with increased delinquency levels for its members. What is less known are the reasons explaining why and how “membership” affects delinquency. Examining the level of organization manifested by the gang may help in understanding how membership affects delinquency. Changing the focus from “membership” to “organizational level” allowed for the consideration of other delinquent associations, namely those offenders who claim membership to a delinquent group. The relationship between organization and delinquency is examined using a self-report delinquency survey administered to 1262 high school students in the province of Quebec, Canada. Results show a progression in delinquency from non-affiliated offenders to group members, with gang members reporting the highest levels of delinquency. Rather than simply emphasizing membership, the multivariate results suggest much of this effect can be attributed to the level of organization found in the group, or gang.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".