Evaluation On Probation: Developing Gender-Responsive And Jurisdictionally Appropriate Evaluation Systems For Offender Services In The British Isles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an account of the application of a structured, evidence-based Canadian instrument for the evaluation of offender intervention services (the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory-2010), and explores the limits of technology transfer between jurisdictional contexts.As well as analysis of evaluation results in two services in the British Isles, this has entailed investigation of the response made by criminal justice agencies and practitioners and how the instrument may need to be modified to operate meaningfully in diverse contexts.During this study, inter-jurisdictional application of the CPAI-2010 exposed turbulent political environments, which had far-reaching implications for the potential of evaluation.This study demonstrates that, to sustain evaluation as a resource for change and development, it must respond to and reflect the political context of agencies, integrate all relevant approaches (eg, Risk-Need-Responsivity, desistance-focused contributions, gender-responsive work, etc) and engage all key social actors (serviceusers, practitioners, managers, etc) in a process of reflection.Its findings indicate that adopting a motivational language, placing a service on a continuum and timing evaluation at an appropriate frequency are all factors that can reflect and ameliorate organisational difficulties.Furthermore, this study highlights that evaluation of organisational context is key to meaningful engagement with the core issues of a service, indicating the inadequacy of evaluation systems focusing solely on practice and/or outcomes.Recidivism rates may be a particularly inadequate outcome measure for women's projects, which have their emphasis on the provision of holistic and diversionary approaches, aiming to keep women (who, as a service-user group, present a low risk of re-offending in any case) out of the disproportionately punitive prison system.The innovation of this study is the development of an evidence-based evaluation approach that meets the needs of services, specifically women's projects, in the British Isles: the Swansea Service Evaluation Inventory -Women's Projects (SSEI-W).
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 | 0.062 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".