An Empirical Study on the Relationship Between Intellectual Ability and an Understanding of the Legal Process in Male Remand Prisoners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research conducted in Australia and around the world in the last decade has shown that people with significant intellectual impairments are over-represented in all areas of the criminal justice system. They are particularly over-represented in remand populations appearing before court. Previous research has suggested that as many as one-quarter of offenders facing sentencing in court have difficulty in understanding court procedures and it is suspected that a majority of these individuals suffer a significant intellectual impairment. The purpose of this study was to establish whether remandees with significant intellectual impairments (IQ < 70) have an accurate understanding of the court system. Seventy-four remand prisoners took part in the study. Remandees with an IQ of less than 70 demonstrated a significantly poorer understanding of the court system than those remandees with an IQ of 70 and above. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to the need for law reform and diversionary practices for this population of remandees.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".