MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395004597 · doi:10.23977/trance.2024.060307

Empirical Research on Juvenile Crime Prevention

2024· article· en· W4395004597 on OpenAlexaff
Zhuoting Li

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions on Comparative Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileCriminologyCrime preventionJuvenile delinquencyBusinessPsychologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article conducts an in-depth analysis and empirical research on the rising juvenile crime rate in China's transitional society. It first outlines the impact of juvenile crime on social stability and public safety, and reviews preventive measures and suggestions proposed by scholars and research institutions in recent years. The study conducted a questionnaire survey on 1000 juveniles with delinquent behavior in City A, and combined with data from relevant departments, analyzed the types of delinquent behavior, age composition, and family-school relationships. The results show that truancy, staying out late at night, and other general delinquent behaviors are common, and are related to ineffective family supervision. Moreover, gang crimes are prominent and closely related to juveniles' dropping out of school and family conditions. The article concludes by proposing suggestions for addressing family, school, internet, and juvenile crime prevention issues, including strengthening legal education, early intervention, optimizing family and school environments, establishing a juvenile crime risk warning system in smart cities, and establishing an intervention mechanism supported by family-school cooperation. These suggestions aim to reduce the juvenile crime rate, enhance their social adaptability and self-protection awareness, and promote social harmony and progress.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.494
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.123 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions on Comparative EducationSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207