An Intensive Supervision Program That Worked: Service Delivery, Professional Orientation, and Organizational Supportiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of treatment services, organizational supportiveness, and parole officer orientation on parolee recidivism. The sample consisted of 240 parolees enrolled in an intensive surveillance supervision program and 240 parolees undergoing traditional parole supervision. The participants were high-risk/high-need parolees. Three measures of parolee recidivism were used: (a) technical parole violation, (b) new conviction, and (c) revocation. These measures were examined by level of treatment services, organizational supportiveness, and the law enforcement/treatment orientation of intensive surveillance supervision program parole officers of which there were three classifications: (a) law enforcement, (b) balanced, and (c) social casework. The data support the view that intensive supervision programs that (a) provide more treatment to higher risk offenders, (b) employ parole officers with balanced law enforcement/social casework orientations, and (c) are implemented in supportive organizational environments may reduce recidivism from 10% to 30% depending on the comparisons being made.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".