Criminal history and employment: an interdisciplinary literature synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of research conducted over the past ten years (2008–2018) that examines the relationship between criminal record and work in the USA. Furthermore, a research agenda is presented that may help to better inform future investigations of the relationships shared between these variables. Design/methodology/approach The authors review 58 peer-reviewed research articles identified in four electronic article databases: Business Source Premier, PsycINFO, ProQuest Sociology Collection and ProQuest Criminology Collection. Findings Of the 58 articles fitting the final inclusion criteria, 37 evaluated employee specific related outcomes, whereas 24 took the perspective of the employer (including some overlap). Studies employed a variety of methodologies and techniques, with qualitative interviews, archival data and audit methods as the most prevalent. Few studies examined the relationships between criminal record and work in ways that demonstrated improved employment outcomes for both employer and the employed together. Originality/value This is one of the first papers to synthesize interdisciplinary literature related to criminal record and employment, including an assessment of the varying methodological treatments and perspectives used in research studies to assess this relationship. The authors believe the findings from this research effort will provide much needed research direction for investigators seeking to make contributions to improving employment outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".