PROTOCOL: The effects of resettlement/re‐entry services on crime and violence in children and youth: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The goal of the study is to examine the impacts of aftercare/resettlement interventions on youth with respect to criminogenic outcomes, and to examine factors related to intervention success. Specific objectives are as follows: (1) What is the impact of aftercare/resettlement interventions on youth with respect to outcomes of crime and violence? (2) How is the treatment effect of aftercare/resettlement interventions on crime and violence outcomes moderated by factors such as participant (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, sex, offender type), treatment (e.g., intensity and quality of implementation), methodological (e.g., measurement of crime, study design, timing of follow-up measures), and study characteristics (e.g., date of publication, peer-reviewed status)? (3) Are some types of aftercare/resettlement interventions more effective than others? (4) What are the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of aftercare/resettlement interventions? (5) What are the mechanisms (theory of change) underlying aftercare/resettlement interventions? (6) What does the available research suggest regarding the cost of aftercare/resettlement interventions?
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 | 0.098 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.124 | 0.016 |
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".