Australia’s research investment in the health of justice-involved populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify and describe National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funding for research on the health of justice-involved people (i.e. people who are incarcerated or otherwise under criminal justice supervision). METHODS: We searched the NHMRC funding database for the period 2000-2022 using keywords and names of prominent researchers. Potentially relevant grants were independently reviewed by two authors for inclusion. Information about included grants was independently extracted by the same two authors. RESULTS: Of A$16.4 billion in NHMRC funding over the period 2000-2022, A$38.7 million (0.22%) was for justice health research. Most grants were for research in Australia's most populous eastern states and focused on mental health, substance use and/or infectious disease. Only A$4.5 million (0.03% of the total NHMRC allocation) was for research on the health of justice-involved children and adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: NHMRC funding for justice health research in Australia is out of step with the substantial health and economic burden associated with Australian criminal justice systems. Greater investment in independent, high-quality research in the justice health field has the potential to improve public health, reduce costs and reduce health inequities. More funding for research on non-communicable disease, disability, and the health of justice-involved children and adolescents is required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".