Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter accentuates some of the reasons why crime ethnographies can face difficulties with the ethics review process, including prominent issues relating to informed consent, risk and harm, anonymity, and criminal behavior. Universities in most Western countries have established research ethics boards over the past twenty years responsible for assessing the ethical conduct of research. Qualitative research can fit poorly into the largely positivist ethics framework, resulting in an often-frustrating situation for ethnographers seeking to move ahead with their research. One paradox of this situation is that the ethics process itself seems poised to give rise to a subset of academic deviants in the form of crime ethnographers who may find that they are obliged to circumvent or disregard some formal ethical strictures in order to engage in ethnographic practices that otherwise seem uncontroversial or even innocuous.
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 | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".