MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616078708 · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edx007

Understanding the Relationship Between Public Opinion and Experience With the Criminal Justice System

2017· article· en· W2616078708 on OpenAlexaff
Chloé Leclerc, Anta Niang, Marie-Chloé Duval

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Opinion Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic opinionPunishment (psychology)Criminal justicePrisonCriminologyPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeTheory of criminal justiceSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surveys indicate that between 70% and 80% of people consider judges to be too lenient. This current research confirms the inadequacy of this general measure of public opinion by contrasting it with alternative opinion-based measures of court sentencing across specific criminal cases. The article also explores the impact of public’s experiences of the criminal justice system on their opinions about the courts. Having been a victim or attending a criminal case where the punishment was seen as being too lenient seems to cause greater dissatisfaction, whereas contact with people working with victims or who have been in prison improves the level of satisfaction.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.616
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.096 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Public Opinion ResearchSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207