Twenty years in the making: Revisiting Laub and Sampson's version of life-course criminology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Using data on participants born around 100 years ago, Laub and Sampson asserted that early developmental risk factors are not informative of social outcomes in adulthood. More specifically, they claimed that early risk factors were not informative of adulthood informal social control, persistent offending, and the degree to which informal social control protects against later offending. We offer a contemporary comparison point to these claims that carry theoretical implications for developmental and life-course criminology . Methods The current study used prospective longitudinal data on 518 male and female participants from the Incarcerated Serious and Violent Young Offender Study. Early developmental risk for persistent offending was measured via the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). Informal social control was measured in emerging adulthood via the Community Risk Needs Assessment (CRNA). Offending trajectories were measured for an average of 15 years following participants' CRNA ratings. Results PCL:YV scores were negatively associated with informal social control (selection effects), positively associated with persistent offending, and negatively related to lower rates of offending, even when informal social control was high (treatment effect heterogeneity). Conclusions Findings align with Elder's conceptualization of life-course theory that acknowledges the potential for individual, social, and macro-level factors to shape human development.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".