MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410475285 · doi:10.1080/13218719.2025.2470621

Evaluating the role of strengths and protective factors for youth with FASD and criminal legal system involvement: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4410475285 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantel Ritter, Kaitlyn McLachlan, Muhammad Usman Anwar Baig, Meghan McMurtry, Margaret N. Lumley

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Psychology and Law · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) are overrepresented in the criminal legal system (CLS). There is greater recognition among scholars, policymakers, and professionals of the importance of strengths-based approaches for this population. The current scoping review (preregistered on the Center for Open Science; DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6WAZE) aimed to determine what strengths and protective factors have been investigated for youth with FASD in the CLS, and how these have been identified, defined, and measured. Results identified an emerging body of literature of 16 peer reviewed articles. Strengths were often nested within deficit-based conversations and included individual (e.g. kindness), relational (e.g. caregiver support), and broader contextual level strengths (e.g. early diagnosis). To foster consistency, understanding, and better support this group, future research should purposefully incorporate strengths and protective factors into research and intervention frameworks and improve conceptual clarity when describing strengths and protective factors in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry Psychology and LawSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207