Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important factor that contributed to the decline of radical perspectives in criminology, including Marxist criminology, is the rise of perspectives on the Right of criminology in the 1970s. These perspectives have been described as ‘the new administrative criminology’ (Young, 1988: 176). They have also been described as ‘neo-conservative’ perspectives or ‘neo-liberal’ criminology.1 This is because they are said to promote ideas about crime and its control that are associated with neo-conservative ideology of the political Right regarding, inter alia, the importance of pursuing economic advancement that benefits a few, preserving traditional values, maintaining order, reinvigorating traditional institutions of control (for example, the family, educational institutions and penal institutions), reducing the role of the state, overlooking socio-economic causes and focusing instead on rationalising penal policies and practice to improve efficiency. Given their commitment to conservative ideals, it is perhaps not surprising that the neo-conservative perspectives of the 1970s and the 1980s went on to have a profound impact on the criminal justice policies of Conservative and Republican governments in the UK and the US, respectively. Rigakos (1996: 76) observes that,‘in the 1970s, neoconservatism enjoyed a dramatic rejuvenation. Since that time, critical criminologists have remained vigilant against a neoconservative onslaught that first materialised in the United States, travelled to England, and has now hit home in Canada.’ According to JockYoung (1988: 176), neo-conservative criminology or the ‘new administrative criminology’ emerged in the 1970s in the midst of an aetiological crisis.2 This occurred because existing explanations about the causes of crime appeared to be invalid for reasons we shall explore later.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".