“A Content Analysis of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ Presidential Address, 1993-2022: A Qualitative Exploration”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prominent sociologists and criminologists have not accorded the respect that criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) deserves. They have questioned CCJ’s standing as an autonomous discipline; they have criticized CCJ for its lack of a “common conceptual language,” a “core theoretical tradition,” and a “methodological commitment.” Consequently, criminologists and criminal justice scholars have been warned not to stray too far from their sociological roots. This condition leads to the following question: are there new ideas about crime and justice that are contained in the annual addresses of ACJS presidents? This article examines the addresses delivered by the presidents of ACJS. The findings indicate that three key domains of reflections can be discerned in the ACJS presidential addresses: (1) legitimacy through accreditation; (2) policy irrelevance as a prelude to public criminology; and (3) visions of justice. The three findings are compared and contrasted with the core themes found in a prior study of ASC presidential addresses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".