Exploring the prevalence and correlates of identity theft-related preventive measures among U.S. adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents represent an emerging population at risk of identity theft, yet little is known about their engagement in preventive behaviours. Using data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adolescents who participated in the National Crime Victimization Survey – Identity Theft Supplement (NCVS-ITS), this study examined the prevalence of six identity theft-related preventive behaviours and assessed the influence of demographic and contextual factors on the likelihood of engaging in these practices. Descriptive findings revealed low overall adoption of preventive behaviours, even among adolescents with financial accounts. Logistic regression analyses indicated that having a checking/savings account and, to a lesser extent, owning a credit card were the most consistent and significant predictors of engagement in preventive behaviours. Age and household income also emerged as significant predictors in several models, while race, gender, and ethnicity were largely nonsignificant. The implications of the findings are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it