MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1504577631

Misdiagnosing the problem: mental health profiles of incarcerated juveniles.

2005· article· en· W1504577631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Candice L. Odgers, Mandi L. Burnette, Preeti Chauhan, Marlene M. Moretti, N. Dickon Reppucci

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAnxietyPsychiatryJuvenile delinquencyDepression (economics)PsychologyAggressionEconomic JusticeMedicineClinical psychologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggression, antisocial and delinquent behavior frequently result in the incarceration of a large number of young people, but these problems pale in comparison to the mental health challenges faced by many of these youth. Recent studies show a high prevalence of mental disorders among adolescents within the justice system. These findings have led researchers, clinicians and policy-makers to re-evaluate the assessment and treatment options that are available for youth within correctional facilities. This article provides a concise review of the most recent research related to mental health disorders among incarcerated juveniles within Canada and the United States. Rates of some of the most common mental health disorders among juveniles, including depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity and substance use are summarized. Throughout the review, issues related to co-morbidity and gender differences are highlighted. The implications of mental health disorders for juvenile justice policy and practice 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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→