Veilige resocialisatie van zedendaders met inzet van vrijwilligers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe resocialization of sex offenders with the aid of volunteers Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) is a method in which volunteers support and monitor a convicted sex offender during his or her re-entry into society in order to prevent new sex offences. COSA was developed in Canada in 1994 as a grass roots approach to an acute crisis in a small town near Toronto, and since then has spread throughout Canada. In 2002, the COSA model was introduced and further developed in England, and from there the approach found its way to the Netherlands, where circle projects are provided by the Dutch Probation Organization since 2010. Until now, more than one hundred sex offenders (‘core members’ in a circle) have participated in a circle in the Netherlands. Although the COSA model predates the Good Lives Model, it’s basic principles align very well to the Good Lives Model. In COSA, a group of three to five volunteers form a surrogate social network, that offers social inclusion, practical and moral support in all kinds of daily challenges the core member faces, and that monitors risk and risk behavior. The volunteers are supervised by a professional circle-coordinator and supported by professionals who are involved in the core members’ after care arrangements. The COSA intervention model describes a number of conditions and strategies that support its effectiveness. Canadian, American and English case-control studies into the effectiveness of COSA shows a substantial reduction of offending behavior in core members compared to controls. Since the international proliferation of the COSA model is ever increasing, protecting the program integrity is a growing concern, and stresses the need for international cooperation between COSA providers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".