Does house arrest impede the working alliance between probation officers and their clients? A comparison of home detention and probation cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For serious offences, or for offenders with significant prior criminal histories, home detention offers an alternative to incarceration. House arrest nvolves a restrictive curfew that many offenders perceive as punitive, but probation officers must still establish rapport and secure compliance. One tool for assessing the therapeutic relationship, or working alliance, is the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI). This study compares WAI scores between probation and home detention cases in an urban Canadian setting (N = 186) and examines the association of working alliance ratings with gender, race, age, education, employment status, time under supervision, offence type, prior criminal history, and probation failure. Participants generally reported strong, positive relationships with their probation officers. No significant associations were found between WAI scores and type of supervision (probation vs. home detention), demographic factors, offence type, or length of supervision. Past supervision failure was associated with lower WAI scores, and this difference was statistically significant, though not large in effect size. Future qualitative research is recommended to gain deeper insights into the dynamics of probation officer – client relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".