MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408038410 · doi:10.1080/13552600.2025.2465401

Strong & Solid Spirit: design & development of a treatment programme for First Nations men incarcerated for sexual offences

2025· article· en· W4408038410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Rayment‐McHugh, Dimity Adams, Nadine McKillop, C. Patricia Hanley, Claire Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sexual Aggression · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlInjury preventionCriminologySuicide preventionSexual violenceSex offenseMedical emergencyMedicineSexual abuse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little research has examined effective treatment for First Nations Peoples who have committed sexual offences, although available evidence suggests poorer retention rates and treatment outcomes for this population. Thus, calls have been made to improve treatment programming, including for the development of treatment programmes designed specifically for First Nations men. Documented in this paper is a three-phase process undertaken to design, develop, and refine a new treatment programme in Queensland Australia, for First Nations men who have committed sexual offences. This incorporated: (i) a review of relevant literature; (ii) participatory interview research with First Nations men, community members, and professionals; and (iii) co-design. The new programme, Strong & Solid Spirit: Community & Accountability (SSS) is introduced. Key transferable lessons for research and practice in other jurisdictions are offered in light of this work.PRACTICE IMPACT STATEMENT This study introduces the Strong & Solid Spirit: Community & Accountability (SSS) programme, a culturally tailored treatment programme for Australian First Nations Men who have committed sexual offences. Key transferable practice lessons highlighted by this work include (1) valuing First Nations and user voices, and co-design processes; (2) centring culture in programme design and implementation and (3) building a First Nations workforce.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sexual AggressionSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207