MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958802562 · doi:10.1002/casp.2418

Victims' emotional distress and preventive measures usage: Influence of crime severity, risk perception, and fear

2019· article· en· W2958802562 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Derek Chadee, Diana Williams, Raecho Bachew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community & Applied Social Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of ManitobaInternational Business Machines CorporationImpact Fund
KeywordsFear of crimeEmotional distressPsychologyDistressContext (archaeology)ComparabilityRisk perceptionPath analysis (statistics)Injury preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPerceptionOccupational safety and healthClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryAnxietyMedicineEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The central thesis of this study is that crime victims' emotional distress, influenced by the severity of the offence experienced, impacts their propensity to utilize preventive measures via its influence on perceived risk of victimization and fear of crime. Path analysis was conducted to test a model of these relationships, utilizing data from a crime victimization survey conducted on the Caribbean Island, Trinidad, in 2015. Results suggest a direct predictive relationship between crime severity and emotional distress and indirect effects of emotional distress on preventive measures through risk perception and fear of crime. Findings were discussed in the context of prior research, comparability, and variances, and practical implications were noted.

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)0.011
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community & Applied Social PsychologySame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207