20‐year prospective follow‐up study of specialized treatment for adolescents who offended sexually
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most follow-up investigations of the effectiveness of specialized treatment for adolescents who have offended sexually have not included a comparison group. Furthermore, the average length of most previous studies is approximately 5 years. This investigation is a 10-year extension of our prospective, 10-year follow-up study of specialized treatment (Worling & Curwen, 2000). Recidivism data (criminal charges) were collected from a national database for 148 adolescents who had offended sexually. Adolescents were between 12 and 19 years of age (M = 15.5; SD = 1.5) at assessment, and the follow-up interval spanned from 12 to 20 years (M = 16.23; SD = 2.02). Relative to the comparison group (n = 90), adolescents who participated in specialized treatment (n = 58) were significantly less likely to receive subsequent charges for sexual, nonsexual violent, and nonviolent crimes. These data add to the growing body of research supporting the effectiveness of specialized treatment for individuals who have offended sexually.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".