MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111376665 · doi:10.1177/0306624x12447771

A Meta-Analysis of Moral Reconation Therapy

2012· review· en· W2111376665 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports on a meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy (MRT). Recipients of MRT included adult and juvenile offenders who were in custody or in the community, typically on parole or probation. The study considered criminal offending subsequent to treatment as the outcome variable. The overall effect size measured by the correlation across 33 studies and 30,259 offenders was significant (r = .16), indicating that MRT had a small but important effect on recidivism. Moderator analyses were conducted to detect the possible factors affecting the relationship between MRT and recidivism. Moderators included setting, age, gender, research design, sample size, type of recidivism, follow-up period, publisher, and year of publication. Moderator analysis demonstrated that MRT was more successful with adult than juvenile offenders in institutional settings as opposed to the community, and where researchers in the primary studies used randomization to allocate participants to either a treatment or control condition. The treatment effect size was greater when the type of recidivism used was rearrest rather than rearrest followed by conviction or reincarceration. The benefits of MRT were strongest with a relatively short follow-up period. MRT was more successful for relatively small samples and for large samples rather than medium-sized samples. The effect size was smaller for studies published by the owners of MRT than by other independent studies. The effect size was also smaller for studies published after 1999.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
grokMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
opusMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.930
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.453 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it