Caregivers’ Considerations of Remorse and Responsibility Among Youth Who Sexually Offend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a youth sexually offends, most of the reactions and repercussions that follow are understandably negative. However, there is limited research about mixed reactions involving remorse and responsibility on the part of the adolescent who offended and their relatives. Based on qualitative interviews with 16 caregivers among 10 families in Canada, this article presents the parents' perspectives on the various processes, benefits, challenges, and outcomes related to expressions of remorse and experiences of responsibility among youth who sexually offended, their victims, and their parents. This study sheds particular light on how adolescent perpetrators of sexual harm and especially their caregivers do feel deeply remorseful and responsible for the impacts of sexual offending behavior, which is contrary to public scrutiny that negatively projects responsibility onto youth offenders and their parents. Thus, our findings emphasize the constructive and considerate ways in which remorse is felt and responsibility is assumed; and by extension, they point to the importance of restorative practices in efforts toward reconciliation and accountability.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".