MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805700931 · doi:10.1080/01639625.2018.1481678

The 40 Members of the Toronto 18: Group Boundaries and the Analysis of Illicit Networks

2018· article· en· W2805700931 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeviant Behavior · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityGeorgia State University
KeywordsCovertScope (computer science)CriminologyGroup (periodic table)Organised crimeTerrorismVariation (astronomy)PsychologyPolitical scienceComputer securitySociologyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increases in studies on the network dynamics of crime groups and co-offending has led many scholars to reflect on potential measurement biases arising from a reliance on official data sources. A problem of official data is that it forces boundaries on criminal groups that are much more fluid and dynamic than they seem. Drawing from interviews with an individual embedded in a terrorist organization and court documents records, we apply longitudinal network methods to examine the extent to which official data influences assessments of a criminal group. Findings show that only a minority of participants interacting with the group were charged for a crime. Yet the majority had an impact on the evolution of the group. Ignoring non-criminal affiliates masks the full scope of covert groups and the variation that can assist in understanding how groups emerge and evolve.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
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 studies0.0010.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.313 · 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