28. Community-Based Research: Learning About Attitudes Towards the Criminal Justice System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research points to the pedagogical value of an engaged and community service-learning approach to developing understanding of course content (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000). To help students achieve a better understanding of how the discipline of psychology contributes to the discipline of law, some students in a second year psychology class participated in a community-based research project, partnering with the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society. The objective of the study was to determine whether there are differences in attitudes towards the criminal justice system between individuals who have, and have not, been in conflict with the law. The student-researchers interviewed men and women from the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies, who had been in conflict with the law, regarding their attitudes toward the criminal justice system, and compared their responses to those given by undergraduate psychology students who did not participate as student-researchers in the project. Responses revealed some commonalities (e.g., recommendations to change sentencing practices) as well as differences (e.g., satisfaction with the justice system). The students wrote a research report describing the findings of the study as well as their reflections on their experience. In addition to the positive feedback received from the community organizations, the students participating in the project reported that they found it to be a positive, enriching, and rewarding experience.
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 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 | 0.028 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".