Measuring Motivation to Change in Sexual Offenders From Institutional Intake to Community Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in motivational levels occurring during various stages of treatment (institutional and community) were measured among 101 federally sentenced sexual offenders in the Ontario region. Motivation was conceptualized as a dynamic process that can be construed from behavioral referents and more global evaluations of internal features/readiness/psychological stance. Five motivational indices were examined: acceptance of guilt for the offense; acceptance of personal responsibility for the offense; disclosure of personal information; motivation to change behavior; and participation in treatment. Offender scores on these indices were evaluated using the Goal Attainment Scaling protocol (T. Hogue, 1994), at four stages of the treatment process: (1) at institutional assessment, (2) following institutional treatment, (3) upon conditional release to the community, and (4) following a 12-week period of community treatment. Results showed that motivation to change sexually deviant behavior was higher at the end of institutional treatment relative to the initial assessment. However, levels of motivation decreased upon conditional release to the community, with few offenders making significant rebounds following 12 weeks of community treatment. Admission of guilt and acceptance of personal responsibility (measured at community treatment) were both significantly associated with treatment outcome.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".