Neuropsychological Assessment in Schooled Adolescent Offenders and Non-Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents who break the law have experienced situations that increase the likelihood of becoming involved in criminal activities such as drug use, gang involvement, adverse economic conditions, among others. All this, added to their stage of human development, which is characterized by physical, cognitive, social and emotional changes, can lead them to have deficiencies in their cognitive processes and at the same time present educational difficulties. The purpose of this study is to evaluate different cognitive processes of these adolescents in comparison to a control group with similar characteristics but who have not committed any crime and whose education has not been interrupted. For this purpose, were included (n = 62) adolescent offenders and (n = 62) adolescent non-offenders of male sex and aged 14 to 18 years was taken. Basic sociodemographic data on their education and psychoactive substance use were collected, as well as cognitive data with tests such as Ineco Frontal Screening for executive functions, Montreal Cognitive Assessment for general functions, among others. The results showed significant differences in executive functions, attentional processes, memory and language. These difficulties can be key to school performance, therefore, educational interventions adapted to these adolescents are suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".