MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045784896 · doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9069-1

Teaching adolescents and adults about adjudicative proceedings: A comparison of pre- and post-teaching scores on the MacCAT-CA.

2007· article· en· W2045784896 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi L. Viljoen, Candice L. Odgers, Thomas Grisso, Chad E. Tillbrook

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and Human Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleLegal psychologyEthnic groupIntelligence quotientCompetence (human resources)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study investigated whether teaching was associated with improved legal understanding among adolescents and adults. Participants included 927 youth and 466 young adults, who completed the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication, the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version, and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. Adolescents aged 13 and younger were less likely than older individuals to improve with teaching. IQ score was positively associated with improvements following teaching, and individuals from ethnic minority groups showed greater improvements following teaching than non-Hispanic Caucasians. The implications of these findings are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw and Human BehaviorSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207