MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387956045 · doi:10.46692/9781529228519.002

Youth Crime Prevention: Myths and Reality

2022· other· en· W4387956045 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSociopolitical Dynamics in Russia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyCrime preventionCriminologySociologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of a book purporting to review the impact of sport-based crime prevention initiatives, one might expect a clear definition of ‘sport-based crime prevention’. The problem with this, unfortunately, is that proponents of that approach tend to leave it vague, and thus avoid scrutiny with respect to its actual impact. Under the cover of haziness, various sport-based crime prevention initiatives can avoid articulating their own logic or explaining how exactly, or on the basis of what evidence, the sports activities they support can logically be associated with crime prevention. The fact is that, as will be discussed in the next chapter, there is little evidence that participation in sport prevents crime or encourages desistance from crime. That observation alone should be enough to disqualify many sports programmes from being subsidized through crime prevention budgets. However, it certainly does not dissuade many from making unsubstantiated claims about the crime prevention impact of sport-based programmes. When they run short of evidence or arguments, proponents of these initiatives are quick to suggest that even if crime prevention is not their main goal, it is nevertheless one of the programmes’ by-products. The concept of sport-based crime prevention is still in need of standard definitions, including operational definitions of what constitutes a sport-based intervention or programme other than the inclusion of a sport-related component. There is no terminology to differentiate between programmes where sport is the sole activity, those that combine sport with other social interventions (for example, using sport as a ‘hook’ to recruit youth), and those where sport is a marginal aspect of the programme. The centrality of sport in such programmes can vary considerably. In many instances, sport is only one of several activities in which participants take part and it is therefore very difficult to identify or quantify sport-specific effects. In some crime prevention programmes, sport participation does not even play a role; it is considered sufficient in some programmes to expose youth to successful athletes or sports personalities as role models or motivational speakers. Sport is itself not always defined clearly within crime prevention initiatives. Sometimes it refers to physical exercise on its own. A distinction is not always explicitly made between competitive sports that could potentially involve violent physical contact, and other sport activities where one is mostly competing against oneself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSociopolitical Dynamics in RussiaFrench-language works237,207