MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946624894 · doi:10.1080/09540261.2018.1552406

Circles of support and accountability (CoSA): a review of the development of CoSA and its international implementation

2019· review· en· W2946624894 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natasha Azoulay, Belinda Winder, Lisa Murphy, J. Paul Fedoroff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) was initially developed in Canada as a community-based programme designed to assist in the community reintegration of individuals who are deemed at high or very high risk of sexual recidivism. This article outlines the historical foundations and frameworks of the CoSA model, and examines the recruitment and training of CoSA volunteers. It reviews the impact that CoSA has on recidivism, as well as the psycho-social implications of the model on the former offenders participating in CoSA (the 'Core Members'), volunteers, and the community at large. International implementation of CoSA is addressed by a review of project initiatives undertaken around the world. This article concludes by addressing the future directions of CoSA, both within Canada and internationally.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of PsychiatrySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207