About new directions of studying social phenomena in criminological science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article explores the emergence of vampirism as a social phenomenon. Studies of vampirism and vampires in different countries of the world have been conducted. Various theories of vampirism are considered such as: teleological, conspiracy, ufological. Indicates that vampirism has a biological basis, which is the manifestation of a disease such as hemoporphyria. According to statistics, such a disease occurs in 1 in 10,000 people. In the United States, in New Orleans, there is a headquarters in the French Quarter that is officially registered with the New Orleans Vampire Association. The number has several hundred participants, they have their office, shops, two medical centers, their own legal department. There are such organizations in different countries around the world. Studies show that they are completely harmless, drink blood daily, but there is no crime, no one attacks, bites, they take blood either at themselves, or at each other, or at the side or at fans who voluntarily give their blood (that is, donors), they sign an agreement that they may be donors for health reasons, that is, they can fully control their behavior. The author concludes that vampirism is a global complex problem that is not only of conspiratorial importance, but also of criminological and criminal law. Therefore, modern lawyers, especially those in the field of criminal justice, should turn to the study of this problem, both in terms of qualifying such socially dangerous actions and considering them as independent criminal law and criminological categories. This area is promising and requires a deeper understanding of its specifics in the legal context.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".