MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324108150 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2015.1101704

Informality, Illegality, and Criminality in Mexico's Border Communities

2015· article· en· W2324108150 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel M. Sabet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfeitExploitEnforcementOrganised crimeBusinessIntellectual propertyIntermediaryInformal sectorState (computer science)Property crimeInternational tradeCriminologyEconomicsEconomic growthLawPolitical scienceComputer securityViolent crimeMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intellectual property rights groups and formal industry associations have long argued that the avoidance of taxes and regulations and the increase in the sale of counterfeit, contraband, pirated, and stolen goods in countries like Mexico contribute to a climate of illegality that incentivizes crime and benefits organized crime. Such informality could play a contributing factor to explain the rise and persistence of violence in Mexico. This concern is particularly relevant in border regions where organized crime controls illicit transnational flows and where many counterfeit and contraband goods cross national boundaries. This paper asks to what extent the informal sector facilitates illegality and criminality more broadly and explores three potential hypotheses: (1) organized crime might find a business opportunity in mitigating the opportunity costs to operating outside the formal economy; (2) intermediaries who manage the state's contradictory strategy of enforcement and tolerance might exploit their structural positions for private gains; and (3) criminals and organized crime might benefit from a climate of illegality. Through an exploration of the informal market for used cars illegally imported from the U.S. and the pirated and counterfeited goods business in Mexico's northern border communities, I find only limited support for the first hypothesis but considerable evidence for the second and third.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207