Using Strength and Risk Factors to Inform Treatment Typologies Over Time for Men on Community Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines treatment typologies over time and their relationship to reoffending outcomes. Latent transition analysis was conducted with 6,675 men on community supervision in Alberta, Canada using risk and strength factors measured by the Service Planning Instrument (Orbis Partners, 2003). Three timepoints were assessed: Time 1 = first assessment within 90 days of start of supervision, Time 2 = 3 to 8 months post initial assessment, and Time 3 = 9 to 14 months post initial assessment. Five profiles consistently emerged: Low risk/Low strength profile, Aggressive, complex need/Low strength profile, Moderate risk/Moderate strength profile, Low risk/High strength profile, and Non-aggressive, complex need/Low strength profile. At Time 3, a sixth profile emerged labeled Moderate complex need/Low strength. Profiles characterized as aggressive and those with complex needs had highest rates of reoffending. Results demonstrate the utility of incorporating strengths, mental health needs, and adverse childhood experiences in risk assessment protocols.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".