III. Revisiting Effective Classification Strategies for Women Offenders in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological researchers in the western world have now provided unequivocal evidence that many correctional interventions reduce re-offending behaviour (Andrews et al., 1999; Lipsey, 1995). Losel’s (1995) review and synthesis of meta-analyses on the efficacy of correctional treatment concluded that the mean treatment effect, over all available studies, is about a 10% reduction in recidivism. Moreover, a study by Andrews et al. (1990) concluded that interventions, which focused on particular variables (e.g. risk, need) showed on average an impressive 30 percent reduction in recidivism for treated groups over those interventions that had no such focus. The seminal work by Andrews and colleagues set the foundation for casebased classification as an essential component of effective correctional treatment in Canada. There is over a decade of empirical research originating in Canada substantiating the principles of risk and need (Andrews, 1989; Andrews et al., 1999; Gendreau, 1996), so that these principles have been accepted into routine practice in treatment planning and delivery within many correctional systems worldwide. However, this research is derived, almost without exception, from samples of male (white) offenders. As such, the question remains: How does appropriate classification for women differ from appropriate classification in general? This question guided the current discussion, with an explicit focus on the principles of risk and need.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".