The Effect of a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Program for Male Young Delinquents in Guangzhou: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pro-criminal attitudes and inefficiency in social skills or problem-solving skills are associated with criminal conducts. Targeting on these factors, Cognitive-Behavior Treatment (CBT) programs are effective interventions for adult and young offenders. However, the effectiveness of CBT programs in Chinese correctional facilities is unknown. The present study, as a pilot one, evaluates a CBT program consisting of six sessions to treat young delinquents in South China. In Guangzhou, 60 male delinquents were divided into experimental and comparison group. Problem-solving skills, social skills and pro-criminal attitudes were measured and compared before and after the program for both groups. Measured by Social Maladjustment Scale (SOC) and General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES), the experimental group showed significant improvements in social skills and problem solving skills, while those of the comparison group remained constant. The results of the pilot study were encouraging and demonstrating the potential of CBT programs to be effective treatment for young delinquents in South China. Implications for future research and cross-cultural generability of CBT are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".