Emotionality during and after the Commissions of an Offence: A Look at Offence-Related Shame and Intrusive Memories in Justice-Involved Adult Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The limited research concerning trauma secondary to committing crime in justice-involved persons has been restricted to male forensic psychiatric and violent offender populations. We aimed to extend this by examining justice-involved persons’ memories about their crimes, and exploring factors involved in intrusive memories across offence types. One hundred justice-involved adult males completed a questionnaire package examining offence-related shame, guilt, instrumentality-reactivity, and memory characteristics. Forty-three percent reported intrusive memories of a crime they committed. These were experienced across all crime types, especially those with reactive elements. Shame was found to be the most significant correlate of intrusive memories over and above all other factors. While further research is needed (e.g., with justice-involved women), results are in line with theoretical foundations of posttraumatic stress disorder and shed light on psychological consequences of offending. The findings have implications for clinicians and researchers alike, in that intrusive memories and shame may be precipitating factors for related risk factors and would relatedly be worth considering when evaluating patterns of violence and creating relapse prevention plans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".