Managing Risk in a Culture of Rights: Providing Support and Treatment in Community-Based Settings for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities who Sexually Offend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with intellectual disability who sexually offend commonly live in community-based \nsettings since the closing of all institutions across the province of Ontario. Nine (n=9) front line staff who provide support to these individuals in three different settings (treatment setting, transitional setting, residential setting) were interviewed. Participants responded to 47 questions to explore how sex offenders with intellectual disability can be supported in the community to prevent re-offenses. Questions encompassed variables that included staff attitudes, various factors impacting support, structural components of the setting, quality of life and the good life, staff training, staff perspectives on treatment, and understanding of risk management. Three overlapping models that have been supported in the literature were used collectively for the basis of this research: The Good Lives Model (Ward & Gannon, 2006; Ward et al., 2007), the quality of life model (Felce & Perry, 1995), and variables associated with risk management. Results of this research showed how this population is being supported in the community with an emphasis on the following elements: positive and objective staff attitude, teamwork, clear rules and protocols, ongoing supervision, consistency, highly trained staff, and environments that promote quality of life. New concepts arose which suggested that all settings display an unequal balance of upholding human rights and managing risks when supporting this high-risk population. This highlights the need for comprehensive assessments in order to match the offender to the proper setting and supports, using an integration of a Risk, Need, Responsivity model and the Good Lives model for offender rehabilitation and to reduce the likelihood of re-offenses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".