Youth correctional officer orientation and opinions on relationships with youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the personal perspectives of current and past youth correctional officers within secure and open custody facilities in Ontario. A multi-methods design was used to examine officers??? orientation to their work, how they view their interactions with youth and their opinions on relationships with youth in custody. Quantitative data was collected to assess demographics, correctional orientation, and officer typology. Qualitative open-ended survey responses probed exploratory areas of interest such as participants??? descriptions of their day, their thoughts on relationships with youth, and their general approach to their work. Although there was a small sample size (N=26), the results indicated that there may be some important relationships between correctional orientation and beliefs around relationships in youth correctional officers. As suggested in previous literature, youth correctional workers report their job as including various tasks ranging from supervision and security to cleaning and preparing meals. There are also indications of differences in correctional orientation and endorsements for relationship development with youth for those who see treatment as part of their role in rehabilitation and those who do not. Additionally, there does not appear to be the groupings of officer types in this youth correctional worker sample as is seen in adult correctional workers. This exploratory study provides a starting point for understanding the unique experiences and duties of youth correctional workers, their correctional orientation, and their views on relationship development with youth. Future research will focus on replicating these findings with a larger sample size.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".