Maintaining an Effective Circle: Volunteer Experiences of Operational Aspects of Circles of Support and Accountability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), trained volunteers support an individual convicted for sexual offenses to reintegrate safely into the community. Developed in Canada, CoSA has been established in many jurisdictions with a growing number of volunteers; however, little is known about whether the training and support provided meets volunteer needs. Using a mixed-methods approach, the aim of the present research was to explore New Zealand CoSA volunteer experiences of the training and support they received and their perceptions about what contributed to the effective operation of a circle. In total, 18 volunteers took part in an interview and 23 volunteers completed a questionnaire. The findings found a mixed response to the training and support received, whereby some volunteers thought the training and support was adequate, whereas other felt the training support they received was inadequate. Findings also illustrate that adequate training, having access to a circle coordinator, selecting the right volunteers and core member, clear communication, and setting up boundaries were important factors in maintaining an effective circle. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for the training and support offered to current and future volunteers, as well as for maintaining the effectiveness of future circles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".