Can Evidence of Trauma, Diversity, and Inclusivity Training Be Reliably Detected in Probation and Parole Officer Case Notes?: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the detectability of trauma, diversity, and inclusivity (TDI) training in probation and parole officer (PPO) case notes following the implementation of the Made-in-Ontario Core Correctional Practices (CCP) Model of Community Supervision. Adherence to TDI principles pre- and post-CCP training was examined and interrater scores were calculated to measure reliability. Case notes from five PPOs, covering 45 clients, were analyzed pre-training (n = 30) and post-training (n = 15). Results suggested that after training, officers trended towards using more TDI skills and principles over the course of supervision, but effect sizes were small. Greater inter-rater reliability was observed for TDI skills than for TDI principles. However, challenges in coding adherence to general TDI principles were noted. Implications include the need for larger sample studies and refined coding manuals to improve reliability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".