Effect of Counselling on Recidivism of Prison Inmates in Nakuru Government Prison, Kenya.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of counselling on the recidivism of prison inmates in Nakuru Government prison. This study was guided by the Social Control Theory. The study population was 100 recidivists from Nakuru prison. The Census method was used to reach the study population. A questionnaire was used as the data collection tool. The pilot study was conducted for the purpose of testing the tools' reliability before they were adopted for the actual research. Quantitative data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), and the qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Since this is sensitive research, the ethical considerations for such studies were observed throughout the study. The study findings revealed that counselling played a minimal role in enabling prisoners to overcome psychological challenges. The study concluded that counselling does not play a more significant role in reducing recidivism among inmates. Counselling does not help prisoners overcome psychosocial challenges that may trigger criminal behaviour. Enhancement of counselling should be done for it to be helpful to prisoners by reducing recidivism. The study concluded that enhancement of counselling and spiritual rehabilitations should be done.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".