MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W166053471

A Review of Findings from the“Gender and Aggression Project”Informing Juvenile Justice Policyand Practice ThroughGender-Sensitive Research

2010· review· en· W166053471 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Candice L. Odgers, Marlene M. Moretti, N. Dickon Reppucci

Notice bibliographique

RevueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2010
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueChild Abuse and Trauma
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesInstitute of Gender and HealthUniversity of VirginiaUniversity of California, IrvineSimon Fraser UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSociety for Community Research and Action
Mots-clésAggressionEconomic JusticeJuvenileCriminologyPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLawBiology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Adolescent girls comprise nearly a third of juvenile arrests, and rates of incarceration among young females have been rising rapidly. Yet, young women continue to be a neglected population in juvenile justice research and service delivery. This special issue is devoted to describing the critical issues that arise when young women come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Over the last decade, our research team has been working together to better understand the lives of justice-involved youth. To this end, we have conducted a multisite longitudinal study that has followed adolescents as they have moved through the juvenile justice system, with our most recent wave of assessments occurring as these young people made the transition back into their communities and into young adulthood. This special issue represents a collection of key findings from the Gender and Aggression Project, with a special emphasis on pathways that young women follow both into and out of the juvenile justice system. The Gender and Aggression Project (GAP) involved a partnership of researchers from across diverse disciplines who came together to build a common research instrument that could be used within both normative and high-risk populations. The findings reviewed in this special issue are derived from two longitudinal studies that used this common assessment instrument to assess the profiles, risk factors, and outcomes of justice-involved youth in the United States and Canada. Study One, the Gender and Aggression Project— Virginia Site, recruited an entire population of females sentenced to secure custody during a 14-month period in a large southeastern state (93% of all admissions). Participants included 141 adolescent females who were, on average, 16 to 17 years of age at the time of the first assessment. The sample was racially/ethnically diverse, with 50.0% self-identifying as African-American, 2.2% as Native American, 1.4% as Hispanic and 8.0% as “Other”: the remaining 38.4% identified as Caucasian. Following their sentencing, each participant underwent a 30-day assessment, which included psychological and educational testing, in addition to a full medical examination completed by a physician. Each participant also completed approximately 6-8 hours of individual assessments, including semi-structured clinical interviews, computerized diagnostic assessments, and a self-report protocol. Approximately two years after the initial interview, 78.5% (N=102) of eligible study members who had been released into the community for at least six months completed a 2-3 hour in-person assessment focused on reentry into the community and on mental and physical health functioning. The third wave of in-person assessments has just been completed with 120 of the study members being followed into young adulthood. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest in-depth studies of girls who have reached the deep-end of the juvenile justice system for which there is now longitudinal assessments available.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,889
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,197
Tête enseignante GPT0,450
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Même sujetChild Abuse and TraumaTravaux en français237 207