Gangs and social media: A systematic literature review and an identification of future challenges, risks and recommendations
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
Gang literature increasingly reflects the importance of social media in gang lifestyle, as gang members adopt new communicative practices. Yet, because of the multifaceted nature of online gang activity and the diversity of methodologies employed, a general overview of research outcomes is not easily achieved. This article seeks to remedy this by analysing academic studies of gang use of social media. A systematic literature review was conducted in Scopus and Google Scholar databases, which led to the identification of 73 publications. We then undertook a content analysis of each publication using an exhaustive evaluation model, comprising 20 variables and 71 categories. A bibliometric analysis was also performed to determine the structural characteristics of the research community that generates these publications. Our results point to an emerging universe of publications with different themes, methods, samples and ethical protocols. The challenges, risks and recommendations for future social media research with youth street groups are identified.
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