MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093145541 · doi:10.1177/0093854820964513

Complex Trauma and Criminogenic Needs in a Youth Justice Sample: A Gender-Informed Latent Profile Analysis

2020· article· en· W3093145541 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shelley L. Brown, Kayla A. Wanamaker, Leigh Greiner, Terri Scott, Tracey A. Skilling

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyLatent class modelClinical psychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionSample (material)Criminal justiceInjury preventionPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How complex trauma features and criminogenic needs co-vary within youth justice populations requires examination. This study applies latent profile analysis to a sample of 311 justice-involved Canadian youth (211 male, 100 female) to identify if unique profiles of youth would emerge delineated by different combinations of comorbid needs pulled from complex trauma and personality/social learning models. Two similar profiles emerged for males and females alike: a complex trauma with criminogenic needs profile (70% of females, 58.8% of males) and a low overall needs profile (30% of females, 41.2% of males). Surprisingly, the Youth-Level Service/Case Management Inventory predicted recidivism well among the complex trauma/criminogenic need female cases (AUC = .71), but poorly among the complex trauma/criminogenic need male cases (AUC = .59). Trauma-informed approaches that target criminogenic needs in both genders is a clear implication of the findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207