Accepting the Terms and Conditions: An Evaluation of a Parole-Based Experiential Assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiential learning is an effective pedagogical tool that has been associated with several beneficial student outcomes.Given the complex and applied nature of criminal justice courses, educators in these fields have sought to implement experiential learning, developing several impactful initiatives along the way.However, many of these require extensive safety planning, resource acquisition, community partnerships, and institutional buy-in.The present study introduces and evaluates an experiential assignment that helps circumvent some of these issues, wherein first-year university students (n = 42) abide by a set of self-selected parole/probation conditions, write a reflection on their experience, and report on the empirical saliency of their conditions.Following the assignment deadline, an online survey was disseminated to students to gauge the impact of their experience.Results indicated that students enjoyed the assignment, believing that it provided real-world experience, transformed their perspectives, and helped them better understand their course material.Students also demonstrated a strong desire for more experiential learning opportunities in their program.Implications and future directions 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".