MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3121634519 · doi:10.3968/11970

Assessment of Rehabilitation Programmes in Nigeria Correctional Facilities

2020· article· en· W3121634519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wasiu Abiodun Makinde, Bolanle Motunrayo Olabode

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationRecreationDescriptive researchLiteracyMedicineService (business)NursingMedical educationPsychologyBusinessPolitical sciencePhysical therapySociologyPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examined the availability and adequacy of rehabilitation programmes in Nigeria Correctional Facilities. A study of sampled Correctional Facilities in Southwestern Nigeria, aimed at using on-site observation for availability of rehabilitation programmes as well as ascertaining the adequacy of such rehabilitation programmes in those sampled correctional facilities. Descriptive research design through observation and administration of questionnaire as well as interviewed was used to extract relevant data for the study. The study discovered that there are various rehabilitation programmes such as recreational activities, adult literacy, educational programmes, counselling programmes, among others which are adequately provided to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for life after incarceration. The study concluded that the rehabilitation programmes available need to be strengthened especially in the area of after care service so that there will be adequate support to start what was learned after incarceration.

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)0.011
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social science→Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→