Post-traumatic growth among exonerees: Exploring transformative experiences after incarceration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exonerees face numerous barriers to reintegration following their release from wrongful imprisonment. To cope with the challenges they face after exoneration, they draw support from a wide range of external and internal resources, assisting them on their path towards self-sufficiency and resilience. In a study about life after exoneration through in-depth interviews with 26 exonerees, we explored the challenges of reentry for exonerees as well as strategies for success. Although none of the exonerees in our study reported finding closure (and most felt it was not attainable), some experienced what has been described in the academic literature as post-traumatic growth, indicating that although the damage wrought by the injustice of wrongful conviction and incarceration cannot be fully healed, some individuals have transformed their experiences into positive personal accomplishments. In this paper, we highlight the transformative experiences of exonerees as they re-established their lives post-release and consider how systems can provide the resources necessary to support post-traumatic growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".