The Road to Desistance: The Relationship between Formal Institutions of Social Control, Informal Social Bonds, and Intermittency in Offending
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examines the relationship between formal social control, informal social bonds, and intermittency in offending. Using data from a Canadian population who have been formally flagged as representing a disproportionate risk to public safety because of their frequent and serious offending over the life course, (N = 376), we use multiple-failure survival analysis to examine whether formal social control (probation supervision) and informal social bonds (to employment, family, and other prosocial community supports) are related to intermittency in offending. We also investigate whether social bonds moderate the relationship between probation and intermittency. Findings indicate that probation, employment and romantic relationships reduce the hazard of reoffending. Longer periods of probation were related to a lower hazard of reoffending for those who have been employed for longer than six months. While probation length has an effect on intermittency, the mere presence of social bonds reduces the hazard of reconviction. Given the importance of prosocial relationships outside of formal systems of control, we argue for policies that are non-punitive, particularly since lengthy periods of probation can also extend system involvement, which can stall the desistance process.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it