Bibliographic record
Abstract
Juvenile delinquency is a quite serious social issue, and family is one of the important factors which can affect juvenile delinquency. This study mainly explored how can family factors influence crimes that are committed by teenagers, and the content will mainly be divided into five parts. Firstly, the effect of the social-economic status of a family will be illustrated. It shows that delinquent behaviors are more likely to show in teenagers with poor socioeconomic positions. Also, the geographical location that teenagers live is able to affect the probability of juvenile delinquency. In addition, youngsters living in non intact families are more likely to show criminal behavior than others living in intact and traditional families. The factors of the parents themselves are also considered in this study. In terms of parental self-control, parents who have a low ability in controlling their emotions (showing more irritable emotions) are more likely to lead a passion for a crime for their children. In addition, parental imprisonment is likely to cause psychological stress for the child and affects boys theft rates. In terms of parenting styles, children who grow up under laissez-faire parenting, lack of supervision, and love from their parents are more probable to become criminals 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 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".