To Breach or Not to Breach: Exploring Inconsistencies in the Interpretation, Enforcement, and Impact of Canada's Section 161 Order for Sexual Offending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community management strategies for people convicted of sexual offences (PCSOs) can hinder reintegration, which plays an important role in reducing recidivism. Section 161 of the Criminal Code is a prohibition order given to people convicted of sexual offences against children (PCSOCs) upon their release into the community. This study was the first to evaluate the 161 Order and explored inconsistencies in the interpretation and enforcement of these conditions among people subject to a 161 Order, community members, and undergraduates. Attitudes toward the treatment of PCSOs were found to mediate the relationship between group membership and subjective legal decision-making. Support for the conditions did not appear to moderate this relationship. Conditions most likely to be inconsistently enforced were also most commonly reported as impacting reintegration. Results suggest the need for more concrete terminology, and a re-evaluation of using long-term management strategies in a population with one of the lowest recidivism rates.
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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".