The Impact of Juvenile Sex Offending on the Adult Criminal Career
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although past studies demonstrated the heterogeneity of the criminal career patterns of juveniles with sexual offenses (JSOs), such studies did not directly assess whether JSOs have different adult offending outcomes compared with juvenile nonsex offenders. Using data on a subsample of males from the Incarcerated Serious and Violent Young Offender Study, JSOs ( n = 78), juveniles with violent offenses (JVOs; n = 550), and juveniles with nonviolent offenses (JNVOs; n = 281) were compared across a variety of adult offending outcomes. JSOs were not associated with a specific trajectory of general offending in adulthood, nor were they associated with a range of adult criminal career parameters (e.g., frequency, severity, specialization, and versatility). However, a range of other indicators of juvenile offending were associated with general offending in adulthood. For juvenile males who experience incarceration, many elements of their offending history mattered for adult offending outcomes, but not sexual offending. Policy implications for treatment and management are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".