MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782559653 · doi:10.1080/17440572.2018.1423800

Burning bridges: why don’t organised crime groups pull back from violent conflicts?

2018· article· en· W2782559653 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Crime · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsInternational Centre for Comparative Criminology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisViolent crimeOrganised crimeGovernment (linguistics)CriminologyPoint (geometry)Political scienceBusinessPublic relationsSociologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dominant theories of organised crime assume that criminal organisations which operate in extremely violent markets do so because they consider it financially cost-effective. This article contends that by using increasingly violent actions intended to deter competitors and government forces, criminal organisations sometimes eliminate their exit option, making the penalties for withdrawal to a less violent strategy significantly worse than those of continued violence. Based on a systematic examination of footage of public statements by 18 former associates of two Mexican organised crime groups (OCGs), La Familia Michoacana (LFM) and its offshoot Los Caballeros Templarios (LCT), this article argues that through gradual increases in their use of violence, these groups reached a ‘point of no return’. After reaching this point, desisting from further violence escalation became more hazardous than pursuing a violent path, even when the latter did not align with the organisations’ business interests.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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