MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559938826 · doi:10.2298/tem1602227f

Victimology’s debt to Nils Christie: The outlasting legacy of a free thinker

2016· article· en· W2559938826 on OpenAlexaff
Ezzat A. Fattah

Bibliographic record

VenueTemida · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjusticeCriminologyCLARITYVictimologyPsychologyPsychoanalysisCreativityEconomic JusticePhenomenonSociologyChild abuseSocial psychologyLawPhilosophyEpistemologyPoison controlPolitical scienceMedicineHuman factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tragic accidental death of Nils Christie was a huge loss to the scholarly worlds of criminology and victimology. An old dear friend and highly esteemed colleague, Christie has been hailed as one of the most innovative criminological thinkers of the 20th century. He left an outlasting legacy to both criminology and victimology. His contributions are characterized by their creativity, their originality and their clarity. To remedy what he saw as a terrible injustice done to crime victims he outlined a court procedure that restores the participants? right to their own conflict, a procedure that provided the theoretical underpinnings of the restorative justice movement. He drew attention to the fact that victimization is not an objectively defined phenomenon but is a personal, relative and highly subjective experience. He insisted that mental images of those subjected to the same victimizing act could be and usually are quite varied. Criminology and victimology owe much to Nils Christie. The present article briefly highlights just a few of his significant contributions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.030
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTemidaSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207