Probation services for the girl delinquent : an evaluation of casework treatment in an involuntary setting based on a representative group of cases appearing before the Vancouver Juvenile Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to evaluate probation as a method of individual casework treatment for delinquent girls and to show the need for the integration of all community services working with the problem of juvenile delinquency. Case material for the study was obtained from the Vancouver Juvenile Court, and many of the cases were selected on the basis of personal knowledge. A general study was made of 197 girls appearing before the Court from 1947 to 1950, and fifty probation cases were selected for detailed study. The fifty cases were analyzed and rated in regard to the degree of Improvement shown during the probation period. It was found that a sufficient number of common factors existed in the backgrounds of the fifty girls to compile a schedule which, is proposed as a guide of diagnostic criteria, giving indications of the kinds of cases which are good risks for probation. It is apparent that case work is not effective in all cases and that probation must be used selectively, with planned use of community resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".