Women Offenders Under Community Supervision: Comparing the Profiles of Returners and Non-Returners to Federal Prison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, as well as the factors that support or impede successful post-release outcomes. Research examining the post-release trajectories of federal releasees in the Canadian context, particularly in the case of women, is necessary to identify opportunities for more responsive case management practices. Drawing on the case files of 43 formerly-federally-incarcerated women referred to a day reporting centre in a large Canadian city, we explore the profiles of women who returned to federal custody from those who did not, considering factors related to demographics, personal history, specifically mental health and mental health needs, static risk and dynamic need. In general, we found that those who returned to custody tended to have more needs and more complex needs relative to non-returners. Notable differences were evident in relation to criminal history, reintegration potential, dynamic factor needs, the presence of a mental health condition, the presence of substance addiction and institutional adjustment (as measured by institutional charges and segregation placements). While not attempting to present causal relationships, we shed light on the case management needs of this particular group and identify areas in need of further inquiry.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".