Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | Meta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| grok | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| opus | MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".