MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2471172639 · doi:10.20381/ruor-19820

Operationalizing the good lives model: An examination of Holland's RIASEC theory and vocational congruence with offenders 2001--2008

2008· dissertation· en· W2471172639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelly Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationCongruence (geometry)PsychologyVocational educationSocial psychologyApplied psychologyPedagogyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lack of employment has been identified as a contributing factor to criminal behaviour (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Canadian Correctional Services have responded accordingly through the provision of interventions directed toward addressing offender needs as they relate to employment issues. Nonetheless, critics have argued that intervention efforts are still largely based on the principles of risk reduction, with limited attention given to a theoretically integrated view of the rehabilitation process. Ward and Stewart (2003) proposed a "Good Lives" model of rehabilitation in hopes of moving toward an enhancement model rather than a strictly harm avoidance model. "Good lives" (Ward & Stewart, 2003) are referred to as methods of living that are beneficial and fulfilling for individuals, and it is argued that any conception of a possible "good life" should take note of an offender's capabilities, temperament, interests, skills, values and support networks. The current research operationalized a 'good lives' model by exploring the theoretical construct of vocational congruence as a protective factor, leading to greater success within correctional environments and upon release in the community. Two studies explored the relevance of Holland's theory of vocational personalities and work environments (1997) for offender populations. The first study examined the validity of Holland's RIASEC Structure for a convenience sample of 305 federally sentenced offenders. Three RIASEC models (i.e., Holland, 1997; Gati, 1982; Round & Tracey, 1996) were also examined in Study I. Results indicated that two of these models are valid for an offender population. The second study examined Holland's theory of vocational congruence (1997) with a convenience sample of 304 federally sentenced offenders. Results revealed minimal support for the statistical significance of vocational congruence for this sample of offenders. Nevertheless, post-hoc analyses showed interesting differences for Aboriginal and women offenders, as well as offenders over 30 years of age. Furthermore, vocational congruence emerged as a significant factor in predicting time to recidivism. The role of behavioural adaptability and relevance of career counselling are introduced. Theoretical and operational implications, as well as implications for the 'Good Lives' model are discussed. The author argues for the value of continued research regarding Holland's RIASEC typology and vocational congruence with offender populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→