Impact of Methadone Maintenance Treatment on Women Offenders' Post-Release Recidivism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug--including opioid--dependence is common in correctional populations, however little research exists on interventions for women offenders. Based on retrospective administrative data, we examined rates of return to custody (RTC) among three samples of Canadian federal women offenders with problematic opioid use (total n=137): (1) a group initiated on MMT during incarceration who continued MMT post-release (MMT-C; n=25); (2) a group initiated on MMT but who terminated treatment post-release (MMT-T; n=67), and (3) a non-MMT control group (MMT-N; n=45). Study groups were similar regarding socio-demographic, drug use and criminogenic indicators. Based on an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards model, the MMT-C group had a 65% lower risk of RTC than the MMT-N (reference) group (HR 0.35, CI 0.13-0.90); RTC risk was not different between the MMT-T and the reference group. Most RTCs were for technical revocations (e.g. violation of a legal condition of their release). Continuous MMT following release from corrections appears to be effective in reducing recidivism in women offenders with opioid problems; barriers to MMT in the study population should be better understood and ameliorated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".