MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061661525

Processes of Violence in Mexico’s Organized Crime Groups: A Study of Los Zetas

2021· dissertation· W7061661525 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMitacs
KeywordsOrganised crimeOrganizational conflictIrrational numberOrganizational structureOrganizational behavior
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leading organized crime (OC) theories often assume that violence by organized crime groups (OCGs) results directly from their overarching objectives. While this assumption seems valid at the aggregate level, at the micro-level, OCGs’ strategic objectives frequently seem unnecessary or insufficient to explain their violence. This thesis argues that to understand why and how micro-level violence by OCGs occurs —especially when it seems irrational or disconnected from purported organizational objectives— it is essential to examine how different organizational processes shape and constrain these groups’ behavior. Organizational processes are collections of activities involving repeated, predicable sequences or patterns that enable organizations to function. By identifying and dissecting the organizational processes that structure an OCG’s behavior, it is possible to unearth the causal mechanisms leading to puzzling forms of violence and explain aspects of violence that seem senseless or extraneous. This thesis examines violence by the OCG known as Los Zetas to substantiate this argument. Each of the thesis’s substantive chapters begins by identifying a form or aspect of violence by Los Zetas that approaches focused on the group’s overarching goals cannot appropriately explain. Subsequently, each chapter analyses the relationship between such forms or aspects of violence and specific organizational processes. En las teorías dominantes sobre el crimen organizado frecuentemente se propone que la violencia por parte de los grupos delictivos es resultado directo de sus objetivos “estratégicos”, es decir, de las acciones que implementan para conseguir sus intereses primordiales. Cuando se analiza el actuar de los grupos delictivos de un país en su conjunto, a grandes rasgos y en el largo plazo, este supuesto es válido desde una perspectiva general. Sin embargo, cuando el análisis se enfoca en el comportamiento de un grupo delictivo en el corto plazo, el supuesto de que sus objetivos estratégicos explican su comportamiento, suele ser insuficiente o incluso innecesario para explicar su violencia. En este trabajo se argumenta que es necesario examinar los procesos organizativos que estructuran y canalizan el comportamiento de un grupo delictivo en el “día a día”, para explicar cómo y por qué se genera la violencia. Entendiendo por procesos organizativos al conjunto de actividades y comportamientos que involucran secuencias repetitivas y predecibles e impredecibles para el funcionamiento de cualquier organización; que al identificarlas y examinarlas permiten generar explicaciones sustantivas de la violencia que generan, y que pueden parecer incoherentes, irracionales, o teóricamente intrascendentes. Esta tesis examina la violencia generada por el grupo delictivo conocido como Los Zetas para sustentar este argumento. Cada uno de los capítulos de la tesis identifica un tipo de violencia, o un aspecto de la violencia de Los Zetas, que no puede ser explicada si se parte del principio de que el grupo utiliza la violencia sólo de manera estratégica para alcanzar sus objetivos primordiales. Subsecuentemente, en cada capítulo se analiza la relación entre dicho tipo o aspecto de la violencia y los procesos organizativos de dicho grupo delictivo.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→