Legal, Ethical and Clinical Implications of Doing Field Work with Youth Gang Members Who Engage in Serious Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on dilemmas encountered when doing ethnographic research with youth gang members involved in serious crime. These acts often endanger the lives of others. It is based upon a qualitative study of how 30 gang members aged 12 17 years accounted for their physical, sexual and emotional violence against girlfriends, gays, and racial minorities. The main objective was to understand gang members’ use of violence, from their perspective. The construction of masculinity was an ongoing process for these youth, negotiated and developed with limited resources at hand. The degree, level, and objects of their brutal violence was associated with differences i adherence to patriarchal-authoritarian models of family and gender at home and in the gang. Most were victimized by severe child abuse and neglect, witnessed horrific beatings of their mothers, and lived on the street. n their There were many dilemmas. First, victims of their violence had to be contacted to ensure safety and provide community resources. Many participants were on probation or in treatment facilities, and appropriate service providers had to be informed. Second, many were under the age of 16 years, and were being abused or neglected by family members. Under child welfare legislation in Canada, it is mandatory to report these incidents to child welfare authorities. Third, some were suicidal at the time of the interview, and required immediate mental health intervention. Youth who did not agree with these limitations to confidentiality were excluded from the study. These types of dilemmas were successfully dealt with, to the benefit of participants and victims. Instead of avoiding this kind of field work, researchers must continue to explore these issues and get proper training prior to commencing research.
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 | 0.128 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".