Fighting against white-collar crime: criminology to the aid of management sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on white-collar crime that combines the perspectives of criminology and management sciences research. Design/methodology/approach Based on a systematic review of white-collar crime recidivism, this paper defines crime and the white-collar criminal from a different perspective. The literature review was conducted using a multidisciplinary approach. Findings This paper offers an insightful discussion of white-collar recidivism. In particular, it highlights the interesting use of “Post Conviction Risk Assessment,” a tool used in criminology literature, and aims to show that the probability of recidivism in white-collar crime can be effectively measured and evaluated. This tool is commonly used by American professionals in combatting criminal recidivism. Originality/value This study provides interesting insights into white-collar crime recidivism. It has a number of implications for probation officers and criminologists evaluating the recidivism risk of white-collar criminals for reintegration purposes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".