MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209486326 · doi:10.11575/prism/32672

The Extent of Youth Victimization, Crime and Delinquency in Alberta, 1999: Summary of Calgary Findings

2000· article· en· W3209486326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L.D. Bertrand, J.T. Gomes, Joseph P. Hornick

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenile delinquencyCriminologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1999, the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family (CRILF), in partnership with researchers from the University of Alberta, undertook a project to examine the extent of youth victimization, crime and delinquency in Alberta. The project was designed to provide information on the prevalence of victimization and delinquent behaviours among youth using an in-school written survey of students in grades 7 through 12. In addition, the study also examined other characteristics such as demographics and family, peer group and school factors that might be related to victimization and delinquency. Detailed findings from the Alberta-wide project are presented in a companion report. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the victimization and delinquency data collected from the students in Calgary. A secondary purpose of this report is to examine changes in the level of youth victimization and delinquency in Calgary over the past five years. In 1994, CRILF conducted a similar study for the Calgary Police Service with funding from the Solicitor General Canada. By comparing the results from the present study with those collected previously, it is possible to address the issue of changes in victimization and delinquency during this period.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207