MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789583328 · doi:10.1177/0011128717753114

Stop and Go: Explaining the Timing of Intermittency in Criminal Careers

2018· article· en· W2789583328 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

VenueCrime & Delinquency · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceCriminologyComplementarity (molecular biology)SanctionsRelevance (law)Criminal behaviorZigzagPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few offenders maintain a linear or constant path in their criminal activities; instead, zigzag paths characterize most criminal careers. The present study seeks to understand the dynamics of such intermittent cycles and examines the effect of direct experience with the justice system and offender success in criminal ventures on the likelihood that offenders will interrupt and then restart their illegal activities. Using the method of life history calendars, the study is based on detailed criminal career data from 172 offenders involved in lucrative forms of crime. Results show the relevance and complementarity of sanctions and dimensions of criminal achievement in understanding an offending path. The research design highlights the importance of considering the timing of circumstances in understanding zigzag paths.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.294 · 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