MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322718676 · doi:10.1002/bsl.2612

Childhood trauma as a mediator between attachment and recidivism risk: A study of Canadian offenders with mental disorders

2023· article· en· W4322718676 on OpenAlexafffundabout
G. Camelia Adams, Andrew J. Wrath, Mansfield Mela, Andrea DesRoches, Stephen Adams, Anita Andreen, Anne McKenna

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan PolytechnicUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsRecidivismMediationClinical psychologyPsychologyMental healthPsychiatryPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsAnxietySuicide preventionInjury preventionMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study aimed to explore the relationships between attachment and childhood trauma on recidivism risk in a sample of Canadian offenders with mental disorder (OMDs). N = 56 OMDs completed the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire, a measure of adult attachment (Experiences in Close Relationships Scale), and interview to determine recidivism risk (Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; LS/CMI). The variables of interest had small to moderate correlations. Multivariable regression analysis found that ACE scores but not attachment insecurity were associated with LS/CMI scores. Mediation analyses demonstrated that ACE scores fully mediated the association between attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance and recidivism risk. Results demonstrate that as exposure to diverse ACEs increased so did the risk to recidivate and this exposure mediated the relationship between attachment insecurity and recidivism risk. This study highlights the necessity of addressing both attachment insecurity and the experience of ACE when providing psychiatric services to OMDs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207