MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6885987970 · doi:10.14288/1.0339931

Incarceration Among Street-Involved Youth in a Canadian Study : Implications for Health and Policy Interventions

2017· article· en· W6885987970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCriminal justiceOddsLogistic regressionRecidivismPopulationGeePublic healthMass incarceration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Risk factors for incarceration have been well described among adult drug using populations; however, less is known about incarceration among at-risk youth. This study examines the prevalence and correlates of incarceration among street-involved youth in a Canadian setting. Methods From September 2005 to May 2012, data were collected from the At-Risk Youth Study, a prospective cohort of street-involved youth aged 14 – 26 who use illicit drugs. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with recent incarceration defined as incarceration in the previous six months. Results Among 1019 participants, 362 (36%) reported having been recently incarcerated during the study period. In multivariate GEE analysis, homelessness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]= 1.60), daily crystal methamphetamine use (AOR= 1.56), public injecting (AOR= 1.33), drug dealing (AOR= 1.48) and being a victim of violence (AOR= 1.68) were independently associated with incarceration (all p <0.05). Conversely, female gender (AOR= 0.48), lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or two-spirited (LGBTT) identification (AOR= 0.47) and increasing age of first hard drug use (AOR= 0.96) were negatively associated with incarceration (all p <0.05). Conclusion Incarceration was common among our study sample. Youth who were homeless, used crystal methamphetamine, and engaged in risky behaviors including public injection and drug dealing were significantly more likely to have been recently incarcerated. Structural interventions including expanding addiction treatment and supportive housing for at-risk youth may help reduce criminal justice involvement among this population and associated health, social and fiscal costs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→