PROMOTIVE FACTORS DURING ADOLESCENCE: ARE THERE CHANGES IN IMPACT AND PREVALENCE DURING ADOLESCENCE AND HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO RISK FACTORS?
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
<p>In this study we compared the impact of promotive and risk factors on 18-month recidivism during adolescence. <em>We measured bipolar factors (factors with risk and promotive effects being the ends of the same continuum) for 13,613 American juveniles who had committed a criminal offense. For most of the factors </em>no significant differences were found between the impact of the promotive and risk ends. Interventions aimed at increasing promotive factors may therefore be potentially just as effective as interventions aimed at decreasing risks. The importance of both promotive and risk factors was found to be significantly higher for younger than for older adolescents in almost every domain, which emphasizes the importance of early intervention. Furthermore, age and sex differences were found in the impact and prevalence of promotive and risk factors.<em> </em>The discussion focuses on implications for clinical practice.</p>
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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