The Effectiveness of Sexual Offender Treatment for Juveniles as Measured by Recidivism: A Meta-analysis
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
Published and unpublished data from nine studies on juvenile sexual offender treatment effectiveness were summarized by meta-analysis (N=2986, 2604 known male). Recidivism rates for sexual, non-sexual violent, non-sexual non-violent crimes, and unspecified non-sexual were as follows: 12.53%, 24.73%, 28.51%, and 20.40%, respectively, based on an average 59-month follow-up period. Four included studies contained a control group (n=2288) and five studies included a comparison treatment group (n=698). An average weighted effect size of 0.43 (CI=0.33-0.55) was obtained, indicating a statistically significant effect of treatment on sexual recidivism. However, individual study characteristics (e.g., handling of dropouts and non-equivalent follow-up periods between treatment groups) suggest that results should be interpreted with caution. A comparison of odds ratios by quality of study design indicated that higher quality designs yielded better effect sizes, though the difference between groups was not significant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it