MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286291959 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0103

Characteristics, institutional behaviour, and post-release outcomes of federal Veteran and non-Veteran men offenders

2022· article· en· W4286291959 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shanna Farrell MacDonald, Sarah Cram, Dena Derkzen, Teresa Pound, Mike Mooz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsVeterans Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthCriminal justiceIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPopulationPsychiatryEconomic JusticeRecidivismCriminologyMedicineGerontologyPolitical scienceLawEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LAY SUMMARY Incarcerated Veterans represent 2.5% of the federal offender population and are a unique subset of the general Canadian Veteran population. This study provides the first in-depth examination of Veteran offenders in federal custody. During the study period, 374 federal offenders self-reported as Veterans. Federal Veteran offenders were older and more likely to have committed a violent offence and to have mental health concerns. Although they were more likely to report mental health concerns, Veteran offenders have more stable institutional behaviour and greater post-release success than non-Veterans. Understanding the unique characteristics and correctional experiences of federal Veteran offenders aids in identifying needs related to intervention and support to promote successful community reintegration after release. Future qualitative research should enhance knowledge of the lived experiences of Veterans involved in the federal criminal justice system in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207