Outcome Evaluation of a High-Intensity Inpatient Sex Offender Treatment Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment outcome of a high-intensity inpatient sex offender treatment program was evaluated by comparing the sexual recidivism rates of 472 treated and 282 untreated sex offenders. The program is designed for moderate- to high-risk sex offenders and follows the principles of effective correctional treatment. The current investigation is an extension of an earlier study (Nicholaichuk et al., 2000) with the addition of 176 participants, an extra 4 years follow-up, and the use of Cox regression survival analysis to control for three potentially confounding variables: age of release, sexual offending history, and length of follow-up. Treated offenders sexually recidivated significantly less than the comparison group over nearly 20 years of follow-up, even after controlling for the aforementioned variables. The substantive findings suggest that treatment adhering to the what works principles can reduce long-term sexual recidivism for a moderate- to high-risk group of sex offenders.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it