MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519054631 · doi:10.1177/0306624x16668179

Desistance From Crime Without Reintegration

2016· article· en· W2519054631 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Lussier, Evan McCuish

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Prosocial behaviorRecidivismJuvenile delinquencyLongitudinal studySex offenderCriminologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criminological theories suggest that desistance from crime cannot be considered outside its social context. Few studies, however, have examined the social context and its importance for individuals convicted of a sex offense. Their unique experience during community reentry warrants specific attention to this group. Using prospective longitudinal data, the current study examined desistance from general offending in a sample of 500 adult males convicted of at least one sex offense. Cox proportional hazards models showed that, although desistance is associated with the presence of prosocial social influences, these differences disappeared after controlling for prior involvement in crime and delinquency. Employment and marital status, commonly described as key turning points, were not found to be significant factors associated with desistance. Of importance, aging and the absence of recent substance abuse issues were key factors associated with desistance. Although these findings warrant further investigation, the study suggests that, for some men, desistance may occur in spite of the absence of community reintegration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.113 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207