Measuring Motivation to Change in Sexual Offenders From Institutional Intake to Community Treatment
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
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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