MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Crime Trends and the Effects of Crime Control Policies

2004· book-chapter· en· W4388066692 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Tonry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital punishmentCapital (architecture)Punishment (psychology)Political scienceDe factoSupreme courtState (computer science)Government (linguistics)LawCriminologyHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Prevailing sensibilities in the contemporary United States have produced, or at least allowed, drug and crime control policies of severity unprecedented in recent American history and unmatched in other Western countries today. There was a de facto moratorium on capital punishment in the United States in 1970 and belief was widespread that the Supreme Court would soon declare the death penalty unconstitutional. For eight years, from 1968 to 1977, no one was executed. In 2001, capital punishment was authorized in thirty-eight states and the federal system, sixty-six people were put to death, and at year’s end 3,625 were on death row (Death Penalty Information Center 2002). In June 2001 the execution of Timothy McVeigh, shown “live” on closed circuit television to more than 230 people, was the first execution by the federal government since 1963. By contrast, in 2001, no Western European country, or Australia, Canada, England, or New Zealand, allowed capital punishment. Courts in South Africa and Hungary had declared their countries’ capital punishment laws unconstitutional. The dozens of Eastern and Southern European countries joining the Council of Europe agreed to forego capital punishment as a condition of membership.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→