Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This paper provides an introduction to best practices in the assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders. Many of the guidelines presented in the paper derive from recent theory and research in criminology and psychology. Much of that research has been conducted in western societies, and it remains to be seen to what extent conclusions from that research can generalize beyond those settings. However, clinical experience suggests that many of the principles of best practice do have application across a broad range of cultures. This paper refl ects a child welfare/rehabilitation orientation toward the treatment of the juvenile offender. As explained\nbelow, current theory and research from psychology and criminology support the position that juvenile justice systems focusing on the identifi cation and amelioration of criminogenic defi cits in the youth and their circumstances produce more positive outcomes than other approaches, including those focusing on punitive sanctions. As well, the implications of the child welfare/rehabilitation model for the treatment of the youth are fully consistent with the UNICEF Guiding Principles for Organizations and Individuals Dealing with Child Welfare and the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child. The paper begins with a discussion of alternative approaches to the treatment of offenders within juvenile justice systems. This is followed by a brief introduction to contemporary theory and research on the causes and correlates of youth crime and the most effi cacious approaches for addressing this serious problem. A discussion of best practices in the assessment of juvenile offenders is then presented. This includes an identifi cation of some useful assessment instruments and procedures as well as practical guidelines in the conduct of assessments. The following section presents a discussion of effective strategies for case planning and management, including the identifi cation of evidence-based treatments." [author's abstract]
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".