MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766450166 · doi:10.1080/15564886.2017.1383958

From Victimization to Criminalization: General Strain Theory and the Relationship Between Poly-victimization and Delinquency

2017· article· en· W2766450166 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jo-Anne Wemmers, Katie Cyr, Claire Chamberland, Geneviève Lessard, Delphine Collin‐Vézina, Marie‐Ève Clément

Bibliographic record

VenueVictims & Offenders · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityInternational Centre for Comparative CriminologyUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral strain theoryJuvenile delinquencyPsychologyAngerInjusticePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsCriminalizationCriminologySocial psychologyMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it is well established that victimization and delinquency are related, it is not clear how this relationship works, and victims and offenders are still often studied and treated as two distinct groups. General strain theory views victimization as a form of injustice, which can give rise to anger and eventually lead to delinquency. The authors examine victimization, in particular polyvictimization, as a criminogenic factor. Based on a sample of 1,400 youths 12–17 years old in Quebec (Canada), they examine polyvictimization in relation to delinquency as well as negative emotions that can result from victimization namely anger, depression, and posttraumatic stress. The findings show support for general strain theory and highlight the importance of anger for the relationship between victimization and juvenile delinquency.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictims & OffendersSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207