Community-Based Treatment for Individuals Convicted of Sexual Offenses Using the Integrated Risk Assessment and Treatment System Model Versus Standard Correctional Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation examined a group of 90 clients receiving treatment for issues related to sexual offending in The Central District (Ontario) Sex Offender Treatment Program operated by Correctional Service Canada (CSC). Treatment was provided in line with the Integrated Risk Assessment and Treatment System (IRATS) Model developed by the authors. A group of 55 individuals who had not received sexual offense–specific treatment but who received standard correctional programming offered by paraprofessionals were used as a basis of comparison. Risk assessment data were available for all clients included in the analyses. Results indicated that there were no differences between groups on the RRASOR (an actuarial instrument designed to assess risk of sexual offense recidivism) with reference to sexual offender recidivism risk. With reference to sexual offense recidivism, only one of the treated clients recidivated sexually over 8.17 years of follow-up versus four of the 55 comparison group who were followed for a significantly shorter period of time (i.e., 6.9 years).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".