Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the increasing difficulties faced in community-based management of sexual offenders in Canada. Those offenders at particularly high-risk to re-offend (e.g., sadistic rapists and serial child molesters) often receive indeterminate sentences, and are rarely released to the community prior to death or incapacitating illness. However, many other high-risk offenders are released from custody at the end of a determinate sentence, often without the benefit of adequate supervision or treatment. In a restorative justice initiative managed by the Mennonite Central Committee of Ontario, 30 high-risk sexual offenders released at sentence completion were provided with community support in the form of Circles of Support and Accountability. A brief overview of the Canadian penal system and its handling of sexual offenders is given to provide the social and political framework in which many current restorative justice projects have been undertaken. It is argued that traditional punitive measures have done little to address risk to the community and that effective interventions in the community must not be limited to time under warrant. The Circles of Support initiative focuses on the need to engage the community in the offender reintegration process. Data are provided regarding recidivism rates in comparison to actuarial projections determined from STATIC-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) survival curves. Recidivism across 30 high-risk offenders, with a mean follow-up time of 36 months, currently stands at less than 40% of that predicted by STATIC-99.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".