Distinguishing among weapons offenders, drug offenders, and weapons and drug offenders based on childhood predictors and adolescent correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weapons and drug offences incur a large cost to society and tend to be strongly associated. Improved understanding of their antecedents could inform targeted early intervention and prevention programmes. AIM: This study aimed to examine differences in criminal careers, childhood predictors and adolescent correlates among weapons-only offenders, drugs-only offenders and a versatile group of weapons + drugs offenders. METHOD: We conducted a longitudinal records study of 455 young Canadians charged with drug and/or weapons offences who started their offending in late childhood/early adolescence. RESULTS: Consistent with expectation, differences emerged in their criminal careers as the versatile group had a longer criminal career and desisted from offending at a later age than weapons-only offenders. Against prediction, weapons-only offenders experienced the greatest number of childhood predictors and adolescent correlates. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The three offending groups could be differentiated on offending trajectories and developmental factors.In making links between past events and later behaviour, life-course criminology may inform development of effective early intervention and prevention strategies.As weapons-only offenders experience the greatest level of adversity in childhood and adolescence, they may benefit most (of these three groups) from early intervention and prevention programmes.A reduction in weapon carrying and use might be achieved by early identification of children risk factors (e.g. family adversity) and appropriate intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".