Youth Crime Prevention: Myths and Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.037 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| 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".