MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575474682

Nepilnamečių smurtas Lietuvoje: raiška, priežastys ir prevencija

2002· article· lt· W2575474682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Genovaitė Babachinaitė

Bibliographic record

VenueJurisprudencija · 2002
Typearticle
Languagelt
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)Juvenile delinquencyQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyJuvenileDemographyCriminologyHistorySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the article agression and auto-agression of juveniles are considered. The most serious criminal forms of agression against the person are premeditated murders and attempts, intentional serious bodily injures and rapes and attempts. Criminal responsibility for these serious crimes starts already at 14 years age. Within the entire post-war period prior to 1988, juveniles commited on average five premeditated murders (including attempts) each year, intentional serious bodily injures – nine or eight and less and a quarter of the total number of registered rapes in Lithuania. In general, the violent crimes accounted for 1,5 percent of juvenile delinquency. Within the past decade, juveniles commited annually on average 21 premeditated murders (four times more than within the previous period); 14 intentional serious bodily injures (1,5 times more than within the previous period) and 26 rapes (that is approximately the same number or less than the average number within the previous period). Within the past eleven-year period (from 1989 till 1999) the number of these who committed suicide was more than double number of murdered children and juveniles under the age of 20 years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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