Assessing the correctional service of Canada high intensity family violence program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A family violence prevention program for incarcerated male offenders was evaluated. One hundred and one (101) offenders incarcerated in minimum and medium security facilities participated in a high intensity family violence prevention program offered by Correctional Services of Canada. Thirteen psychological, attitudinal, and behavioural measures were administered to the offenders. The measures were administered either pre-treatment only, pre-and post-treatment, or post-treatment only. Five measures were self-report measures completed by offenders, and eight were administered and scored by qualified corrections personnel. The offenders showed a number of positive pre- to post-treatment changes. Following treatment, offenders reported that they were less likely to rationalize their abusive behaviour or believe that being a man grants one special privileges and entitlements over women. Offenders were less likely to support the use of power and control tactics over women or to endorse an assortment of myths that can foster inequality and abuse. Following treatment, offenders were judged to have shown an improvement in their willingness to sympathize with their partner as well as an improvement in their conflict-resolution skills. Offenders were also judged to show substantial pre- to post-treatment improvements in their compliance with, and response to, treatment, as well as demonstrating an improved ability to apply the knowledge and skills learned from treatment. The Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) Scale failed to demonstrate concurrent and predictive validity on a sub-sample of these domestic violent offenders.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".