Reconsidering Reconciliation Within Families of Youth Who Sexually Offend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on youth sexual offending has focused primarily on its prevalence, risk factors, treatment interventions, and recidivism rates. Thus, there is a need to develop better understandings of the processes towards reconciliation (or the lack thereof) that occur in the context of the collateral consequences of such harm-generating behavior. This qualitative study presents parents' perspectives on the benefits and challenges associated with the implications and outcomes of reconciliation, and of its deprivation among sexually offending youth, victims and their relatives. We analysed in-depth, semi-structured interview data among 16 parents from 10 families in Canada using thematic coding procedures. The findings reveal that in the absence of reconciliation, both relationship repair and rehabilitation are hindered by miscommunication, bitterness, and confusion. By contrast, when meaningful reconciliation occurs, offending youth are better able to take responsibility for their actions, which in many cases led to victim validation and relationship restoration among all affected parties, including immediate and extended relatives. Our research points to the importance of restorative practices in both formal and informal attempts towards accountability, reconciliation, rehabilitation, victim redress, as well as family and community reintegration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".