Women parolees’ mental health in the context of reintegration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contributing to the literature on reintegration and community supervision, we consider the mental health experiences of women parolees and the implications for case management. AIMS: We consider the different ways mental health considerations are responded to by parole officers and case management staff, identifying areas of tension (e.g., when psychological services are fused with supervision) but also areas of opportunity (e.g., when case management staff forge therapeutic relationships with parolees). METHODS: Using a grounded approach we explore women's parole experiences and case management practices through a qualitative analysis of parole and casework documents. Our iterative process of document analysis included content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Mental health is responded to both as a therapeutic need and criminogenic risk. Therapeutic responses entail both formal and informal supportive interventions that often appear welcomed by and beneficial to parolees. Risk-based responses fuse mental health considerations into supervisory frameworks, evidenced by the prominence of mental health-related parole conditions and the role of psychologists as assessors of risk. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: The tension between treatment and supervision can undermine conditions favourable to responsive case management and the working alliance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it