Evaluating the Effectiveness of Professionally‐Facilitated Volunteerism in the Community‐Based Management of High‐Risk Sexual Offenders: Part One – Effects on Participants and Stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This study presents evaluation data from the Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) pilot project in South‐Central Ontario, Canada – specifically regarding the effect that COSA has had on the community and those personally involved in the project. Results suggest that the COSA initiative has had a profound effect on all stakeholders: offenders, community volunteers, affiliated professionals, and the community‐at‐large. Being involved in a COSA appears to have greatly assisted many high‐risk sexual offenders released to the community in remaining crime‐free, with many reporting that they likely would have returned to offending without help from COSA. Community volunteers involved in the project reported a perceived increase in community safety as a result of COSA, as well as a belief that Core Members were motivated to succeed in the community. Professionals and agencies (for example, police officers, social services professionals, administrators, and other similar professionals) identified increased offender responsibility and accountability, as well as enhanced community safety. Survey results obtained from members of the community‐at‐large showed substantial increases in perceived community safety in knowing that high‐risk sexual offenders in the community were involved in the project. The results of this study are discussed within a framework of empowering communities to participate in the effective risk management of released sexual offenders.
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 | 0.032 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".