Self-harm and aggression in women who committed a criminal offence: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the current state of the literature on the variables associated with self-harm and aggression in women who committed a criminal offence. Design/methodology/approach Studies were identified through online databases, namely, PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC and EBSCOhost, as well as manual searches of reference lists of the selected studies. The target population included women who committed a criminal offence and have engaged in self-harm and aggressive behaviors during their incarceration, either in correctional institutions or in forensic psychiatric settings. Findings Of the 1,178 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted in six different countries and included data from 6360 female participants. Few studies examine self-harm and aggression in women who committed a criminal offence which speaks to the still sparse literature on this topic. This review of the association between self-harm and aggression in women offenders highlights the finding that a small group of women is often involved in both self-harm and aggression. The authors have identified possible psychological factors associated with women engaging in both self-harm and aggression. The findings also reveal a possible connection between types of aggressive behaviors and specific time periods during sentences or stays in forensic psychiatry. Practical implications The findings of this scoping review have clinical implications which may be considered by both researchers and the case management teams of women involved in both self-harm and aggression. Originality/value Despite the limited number of studies examining self-harm and aggression in women, this scoping review highlights gaps in the literature as well as notable psychological correlates of women who engage in self-harm and aggression.
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 | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".