The Spatial Characteristics of Homes as Private Domains that May Promote Youth Offending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This a review analysis concerned with describing the spatial characteristics of homes as private domains that may promote youth offending. The goal of this paper is to explicate such characteristics and relate them to the development of a young criminal personality. The main point is that the manner in which homes are structured and family processes are conducted could give children many opportunities to learn criminal behaviour without interruption. The geographical themes of space, time and culture are used to explicate the characteristics of the home as a private space. Research results from reviewed articles have given this paper three structured sections. The first session briefly defines and describes the home as a private space. Section 2 critically discusses the hidden dimensions of the home as a private space. The family is identified as a site of authentic experience, ownership and secrecy, commitment and an obligation to shared values, as well as voluntary compassion. The home is shown to be a territory of respect and recognition, but it is also argued that, under particular circumstances, these characteristics of the home could influence or allow children to learn criminal behaviour. The last section of the paper focuses on factors in the home that influence children to replicate negative parental behaviour, although it is acknowledged that most parents do not consciously wish their children to learn non-conforming behaviour in their homes, and that not all children exposed to concealed negative home characteristics will commit a crime. It is suggested that crime prevention efforts should start with the interrogation and mediation of home and family characteristics that could influence children to learn criminal behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".