Dine and Dash: An Exploratory Application of Three Criminological Theories
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this exploratory study, we tested the relevance of social learning, rational choice, and social control theories as explanations of “dining and dashing,” an act that has substantial financial implications for the restaurant industry yet one that has received almost no empirical attention. Dine and dash is defined as people using a food and/or beverage service that is expected to be paid for and leaving the premises with no intention of returning to pay. Using a survey sample of 358 undergraduate and graduate students from a Canadian university, we found partial support for social learning and rational choice theories. Individuals who knew someone else who had dined and dashed were more likely to dine and dash themselves (social learning theory) (OR = 17.85, p < .001). When a person thought they would suffer consequences (e.g., paying a fine), they were less likely to dine and dash (rational choice theory) (OR = 0.76, p < .001). Those who considered the benefits of dining and dashing were more likely to dine and dash (OR = 1.24, p < .01). No variables drawn from social control theory were related to dining and dashing.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it