MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133886651 · doi:10.1177/0093854806290162

Development and Field Test of a Gender-Informed Security Reclassification Scale for Female Offenders

2007· article· en· W2133886651 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelley Blanchette, Kelly Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Test (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)MisconductPsychologyConstruct validityComputer securityConstruct (python library)Clinical psychologyApplied psychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychometricsPolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two samples of Canadian federal female offender case files are used to develop and test a gender-informed security reclassification scale. Study 1 uses 285 consecutive offender security level (OSL) reviews for federally sentenced women to empirically construct the Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW). Study 2 uses all federal female OSL reviews that occurred between July 2000 and June 2003 ( n = 580) to test the validity and reliability of the SRSW. Results suggest that the SRSW is a reliable and valid tool for the security classification of federally sentenced women in Canada. Relative to the current classification method, the SRSW places fewer cases at maximum security and more cases at minimum security. Within a fixed 3-month follow-up, the SRSW is significantly more predictive of minor institutional misconduct than the structured clinical method currently in use. Results are discussed in terms of both theoretical and operational implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207