Health Status of Incarcerated Adolescents: Implications for Juvenile Justice Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Adolescents arriving in detention often bring with them significant medical, dental, and psychological problems. These issues have important implications for courts that must decide the best disposition for offending youths. Appropriate treatment benefits the individual by enhancing his/her well‐being and improving his/her chances of successful rehabilitation. Society also benefits by avoiding the higher cost of caring for neglected conditions later in life. A comprehensive health care program for detention facilities involves establishing standardized procedures that address both common adolescent problems plus those more peculiar to detainees. Health care professionals working in a correctional setting have unique duties such as clearing youths for boot camp, monitoring injuries, dealing with resistant patients, monitoring for safe activities, and planning aftercare for youths who may face impediments to accessing care such as poor motivation and poverty. Research concerning issues specific to the needs of incarcerated youths remains infrequent and should be undertaken by health care providers. This article provides an overview of medical issues confronting juvenile offenders that should be considered when a juvenile becomes involved in the juvenile justice system.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".