MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043225919 · doi:10.52922/ti04480

Understanding the structure and composition of co-offending networks in Australia

2020· book· en· W3043225919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Bright, Chad Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Institute of Criminology eBooks · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyProject commissioningCo-occurrencePsychologyPublishingEngineeringSociologyPolitical scienceComputer securityLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large volume of criminal offending involves two or more individuals acting collaboratively. In recent years, much contemporary research on group crime has integrated research on co-offending with the study of criminal networks. However, while this research (mostly from the United States and Canada) is generating significant insights into co-offending, there is a notable absence of research on co-offending and co-offending networks in Australia. This report presents the findings of a study into co-offending using arrest data from Melbourne, Australia. The study sought to extend previous work on co-offending by analysing the range of crime types committed by individuals and co-offenders across co-offending networks.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.059 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Institute of Criminology eBooksSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207