Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the individual functioning, interpersonal relations, and academic performance of 142 female adolescents who were divided into three demographically similar groups: violent juvenile offenders ( n = 51), nonviolent juvenile offenders ( n = 56), and nondelinquent youths (ND; n = 35). Both the violent and the nonviolent offenders had histories of serious crimes (i.e., felonies). Parents and youths completed self-report instruments, behavior-rating inventories, and a videorecorded interaction task, and teachers completed a rating measure. Results showed that violent juvenile offenders and nonviolent juvenile offenders had more behavior problems, more difficulties in family and peer relations, and poorer academic performance than did ND. However, violent juvenile offenders did not differ from nonviolent juvenile offenders on any of the measures of individual functioning, family relations, peer relations, or academic performance. Taken together, the findings suggest that girls who commit serious crimes, regardless of whether violence is involved, share a number of risk factors across key domains of individual and interpersonal functioning. The implications of these findings for research, theory, and treatment are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".