Gender Differences in the Prevalence and Predictive Validity of Protective Factors in a Sample of Justice-Involved Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on strengths and violent behavior in justice-involved youth suggests that the prevalence and predictive validity of strength factors vary as a function of gender. Interviews conducted between 2009 and 2012 with 185 justice-involved Canadian youth ( N female = 84, N male = 101; 67% violent index offence) were coded retrospectively using two strength measures for violence prediction: the protective domain of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors-Youth Version (SAPROF-YV). Males exhibited more protective factors than females across measures. Both tools were strong predictors of general recidivism in males but not females. The SAVRY protective domain was predictive of violent recidivism in males, but the SAPROF-YV was not; neither was predictive of violent recidivism in females. This study demonstrates gender differences in the prevalence and predictive validity of strengths in justice-involved youth and highlights the need for more female-focused research and measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".