MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389298921 · doi:10.1080/01924036.2023.2286235

Who is coming back to prison? Emerging adulthood and the challenges associated with desistance from crime

2023· article· en· W4389298921 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabelle F.-Dufour, Stéphanie Chouinard-Thivierge, Patrick Lussier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsInternational Centre for Comparative CriminologyUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecidivismPrisonCriminal justiceIntervention (counseling)PsychologyCriminologyEconomic JusticeLife course approachPsychiatryPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging adulthood is a period involving dramatic change and many life transitions. Justice-involved individuals experiencing these transitions are statistically more likely to engage in criminal behaviours and to return into incarceration and are therefore frequently targeted for intervention by the criminal justice system. We also know that the emerging adulthood is a period of life transitions during which most young offenders eventually desist from crime, albeit at different paces. The current study is set to better understand factors that could accelerate the process of desistance. The current study presents findings from a cohort of 1,770 young men incarcerated in the province of Quebec, Canada, and aims at identifying factors more often associated with young adult recidivism or factors that facilitate their desistance. The findings show that young adult men with substance abuse problems, endorsing procriminal attitudes who are struggling with marital and familial problems, are more likely to return to prison. The implications of these findings for correctional intervention programmes are discussed.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal JusticeSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207