MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281816587 · doi:10.1177/13624806221104562

Why Global North criminology fails to explain organized crime in Mexico

2022· article· en· W4281816587 on OpenAlex
Valentin Pereda

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Criminology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamOrganised crimeCriminologyCultural criminologyPhenomenonScope (computer science)SociologyGlobal SouthPolitical scienceLawGeographyEconomic geographyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevailing definitions of organized crime and methodological approaches to studying it derive mainly from the Global North. However, an emergent body of literature suggests that organized crime in the Global South differs from organized crime in the Global North. Focusing on the case of Mexico, I argue that mainstream criminological theories’ inability to explain significant aspects of organized crime in that country stems from their underspecified scope. Mainstream theories analyse organized crime as a phenomenon that transpires in societies characterized by high levels of internal peace, rule of law and strong public institutions. In Mexico, a country that fails to adhere to these conditions, organized crime manifestations defy prevailing theoretical assumptions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.258 · 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