Police—Parole Partnerships in Canada: A Review of a Promising Programme
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
Funded by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), the Integrated Police–Parole Initiative (IPPI) places police officers in CSC offices, where they support the activities of parole staff. First introduced in 2006–07, these officers work with high-risk offenders in their transition from the penitentiary to community, in order to increase public safety. Analyses of technical violations of conditional releases revealed that sites where these officers were deployed successfully reduced the number of parole violations. These promising results suggest that the IPPI has avoided the ‘community removal’ element of parole supervision that is evident in some North American jurisdictions, and promotes the safe reintegration of offenders into the community. Implications for public safety, as well as law enforcement and correctional partnerships are discussed. Note: these data were originally obtained as part of a CSC analysis of the IPPI, but the opinions expressed within this study do not necessarily reflect those of the CSC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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