MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033554959 · doi:10.1080/10509670801992418

Evaluation of an Innovative Post-Arrest Diversion Program: 12-Month Recidivism Analysis

2008· article· en· W2033554959 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Dembo, Wansley Walters, Jennifer Wareham, Catherimarty Burgos, James Schmeidler, Robert D. Hoge, Lee A. Underwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Offender Rehabilitation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismJuvenilePsychosocialPoisson regressionJuvenile delinquencyAssessment centerPsychologyProgram evaluationMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthApplied psychologyPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the results of an evaluation study of a diversion program, operated by the Miami-Dade County Juvenile Assessment Center in Florida. The Post-Arrest Diversion (PAD) program represents an innovative approach to treatment and intervention within the juvenile justice system that utilizes standardized psychosocial risks and needs assessment to provide individual treatment for first-time, non-violent juvenile offenders. The present study evaluated the effectiveness of the PAD program with regard to one-year follow-up recidivism. The sample is comprised of 409 youths (255 male; 154 female) who entered PAD between April and June of 2003. Stepwise, Poisson and OLS regression analyses of the effects of socio-demographic characteristics, type of charges leading to program involvement, recidivism risk level, PAD completion, and arrests while in PAD on the number of recidivism arrests and charges were conducted. The findings suggest that successful completion of PAD significantly reduces recidivism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Offender RehabilitationSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207