MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042132146 · doi:10.7202/1069847ar

Folklore and Crime

2020· article· en· W3042132146 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. H. Conn

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolkloreRelation (database)Set (abstract data type)CriminologyHistoryPsychologyLiteratureArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The folklore related to crime and its perpetrators forms a diverse body of lore. This paper proposes that this variation arises principally from the different actors and their interaction. A method of examination is set out that considers which folk group is telling or practicing the folklore and in relation to which group it is told or practiced (such as victims about perceived perpetrators; or accused about the judiciary). This is followed by a general examination of folklore within these categories before undertaking a case study of a large body of folklore regarding a single form of crime (Advance Fee Fraud, also known as the “419” or “Nigerian Prince” scam).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicAfrican history and culture analysisFrench-language works237,207