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
Objectives: A meta-analysis was conducted in order to generate more understanding regarding the efficacy of aftercare programs in reducing the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders reentering their communities following a period of custody. Method: 30 eligible primary studies were obtained through a systematic literature review and were coded. Recidivism was the outcome variable and 11 moderating variables were grouped according to either a sample, treatment, methodological, or study characteristic. A summary effect size was computed while moderator analyses and meta-regression were also conducted. Results: The summary effect size of aftercare programs was non-significant but subgroup univariate and multivariate analyses yielded significant treatment effects for samples of youth who averaged over 16.5 years of age and whose predominant index offense was violent. Well-implemented aftercare programs also yielded substantial treatment effects. Conclusion: The findings suggest that under specific conditions aftercare can reduce recidivism rates for youth 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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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