MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011046501

Latin American Homicide (Chapter 3)

2024· article· en· W7011046501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Archive - University at Albany (University at Albany, State University of New York) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideLatin AmericansQuarter (Canadian coin)HarmPopulationPoison controlPandemicWorld population
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The urgency for studying Latin America and the Caribbean(LAC) emanates from violence rates that are remarkably higher than in most world regions. Global homicide rates have recently declined (Rogers & Pridemore, 2018; Tuttle et al., 2018). While LAC followed suit, its rates are still comparatively high, and it is home to less than 10% of the global population but about one-third of homicides. The World Health Organization defines violence as endemic if a nation reaches ten homicides per 100,000 residents. Over two-thirds of LAC, nations meet this threshold (World Health Organization, 2023), and the regional mean is above 10. The Pan American Health Organization deemed LAC violence the social pandemic of the century in the Americas (Imbush, 2011). Of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world – as measured by homicide rates – 42 are in LAC (Igarapé, 2023). Although not experiencing civil war, homicide rates in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico are at or above nations with active conflicts (Feldmann & Luna, 2022). Beyond the harm to individuals, families, and communities, the Inter-American Development Bank reported that crime and violence in the region cost a quarter trillion dollars annually, or 3.5% of the region's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Jaitman et al., 2017).

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.020

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Archive - University at Albany (University at Albany, State University of New York)Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207