Institutional Offense Patterns in Adolescent Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study compared the antisocial and mental health functioning of incarcerated adolescents with histories of serious and persistent institutional misconduct to those with histories of minor forms of institutional misconduct. Institutional offense histories of 192 incarcerated adolescent offenders (84.5% male) were reviewed and their mental health was assessed using the Youth Self-Report (YSR) to determine whether mental health factors were more prevalent in serious/persistent institutional offenders. Youths with a history of serious/prolific institutional offending were younger at first arrest, had more convictions, spent more time incarcerated, and scored higher on YSR aggression and delinquency subscales than those with low/moderate institutional offending. Although antisociality is likely a major contributor to serious and persistent forms of institutional misconduct, these youths, especially the females, had significantly higher YSR anxiety/depression symptoms than the low/moderate institutional offending group. Although traditional criminogenic factors may be more salient to the risk of institutional misconduct, mental health should remain an important area of case management given its comorbidity with higher levels of misconduct and its potential impact on youths' responsivity to interventions focusing on criminogenic needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".