The Advancement of Thug Criminology: Towards the Decolonization of ‘Street/Gang’ Research and Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a dialectical conversation between an insider/outsider vs insider/insider gang researcher, wherein a new criminology is advanced - Thug Criminology. In challenging current disciplinary accounts, we argue that: a) gang research has largely reinforced, maintained, and reified stereotypical views of ‘gangs’ and their behaviour; b) insider/insider gang researcher voices have not been privileged within academia; and c) those posited as ‘expert’ gang scholars, and whose knowledges have been accorded authority, are outsiders. As such, laws and practices, which negatively affect gang-involved populations, have been largely informed by an uncritical and unchallenged position of privilege. Thug Criminology seeks to create an academic space for insider ‘gang’ or street scholars to contribute to knowledge, policies, and practices that are less harmful to those who are targeted and deemed a threat.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".