Risk Principle of Case Classification in Correctional Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent meta-analyses have documented considerable evidence demonstrating that correctional treatment programs are indeed effective for reducing recidivism in offender populations. The effect of client risk, an issue that has received extensive coverage in the extant literature from an assessment perspective, has been relatively ignored in these efforts. The present study marks the first exhaustive meta-analytic investigation of the risk principle and its effects on correctional treatment program effectiveness. The results reveal moderate support for its utility, although the magnitude of the findings are affected by the reporting practices used in the primary studies. Finally, the evidence supporting the risk principle is much stronger for female offenders and young offenders and within programs that are deemed appropriate according to the principles of need and responsivity. It should be noted that justice interventions that did not include elements of human service (e.g., increased sanctions) yielded negative results regardless of level of client risk.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it