Negligent criminology: Alfred Adler’s influence on Bernard, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We suggest that Bernard, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck routinely applied Alfred Adler’s general psychological concepts to specific instances of criminological theory without proper attribution. We offer several levels of support: (1) we contrast the Freudian terminology within Bernard Glueck’s early writings and Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck’s influential book Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (1950) with the Adlerian constructs of their respective criminological works; (2) we describe the enduring similarity between life-course theory of crime and Adler’s original theory; and (3) we speculate as to how this apparent but non-attributed Adlerian influence occurred. Overall, the article exposes a circumstantial evidence of neglect in the criminology literature: Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck’s silence on Adler’s contribution and their own ostracization by mainstream criminology. We conclude that acknowledgment of the Gluecks’ contribution and their debt to Adler could continue to reinvigorate criminology today.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".