MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281635762 · doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.76312bed

Supporting young people's cognition and communication in the courtroom: A scoping review of current practices

2022· review· en· W4281635762 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim Turner, Nathan Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueCrimRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyCurrent (fluid)Cognitive scienceEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background
\n
\nA recent meta-analysis suggested that the majority of young people in contact with the criminal justice system have cognitive and/or communication impairments. Over the past 20 years, recognition of these complex needs has resulted in support measures being put in place in courtrooms across the globe. It is therefore timely to review evidence for the efficacy of these measures.
\n
\n
\n
\nAims
\n
\nThis scoping review evaluates evidence on support measures employed to facilitate access to court proceedings for individuals with cognition and communication impairments, and considers how this evidence might inform future research and practice.
\n
\n
\n
\nMethods
\n
\nResearch databases were searched for studies that: directly or indirectly involved a population with a form of functional impairment and/or diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorder; and refer to support delivered to remove barriers or support access to courtroom processes.
\n
\n
\n
\nResults
\n
\nSearches identified 3,318 distinct articles. Following review, 37 papers were identified for inclusion. The papers were published between 1993 and 2019, with the majority being published since 2010 (n = 23). The majority of papers were from the United Kingdom (n = 26); other countries represented were Australia (n = 1), Canada (n = 3), New Zealand (n = 2), UK papers don't necessarily state which countries involved (n = 2) Scotland specifically state Scotland only and the United States (n = 3). No papers met the criteria for an experimental research design.
\n
\n
\n
\nConclusions
\n
\nWhilst the high level of need in this population is well established, which support measures are most effective in enabling engagement in court processes is not currently clear. More robust evaluative research is therefore required to establish the most effective methods of support. Despite this lack of evidence regarding outcomes, both young people and professionals generally view support measures favourably. There is an increasing onus on professionals to adapt their practice rather than to support/enhance the cognition and communication skills of young people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrimRxivSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207