Risk and Protective Factors Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Youth Offenders in Calgary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk and protective factors were divided into five distinct domains: individual, family, peer, school, and community. Analyses of factors within these domains yielded a number of significant findings. Individual Factors Domain • A large majority of youth in all groups were male; there were no significant gender differences between groups. • Though there were no significant differences between groups with regard to employment status, youth in the 1st or 2nd generation immigrant group were the least likely to be employed at the time they were interviewed (30.8%). • With regard to drug and alcohol related behaviour, a majority of youth in all groups had experience with drugs and alcohol; however, Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant, Canadian born, and Native/Métis youth were significantly more likely to have substance abuse issues than 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth from other ethnic backgrounds (76.9%-78.5% vs. 23.1%). • Analyses of property-related delinquent behaviours revealed that the only factor that demonstrated significant differences between groups was having broken into a house; Native/Métis youth were the most likely to have engaged in this behaviour (86.7%) compared to 30.8% of 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth from other ethnic backgrounds, who were the least likely. • Analyses of mental health characteristics revealed a number of factors where there were significant differences between groups. The 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth from other ethnic backgrounds were the least likely to have received a psychological assessment (9.1%) compared to 76.9% of Native/Métis youth. All Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth had received counselling, compared to just over half (54.5%) of 1st or 2nd generation youth from other backgrounds. Native/Métis youth were the most likely to have a diagnosis of mental health problems (71.4%) compared to only 7.7% of 1st of 2nd generation, other ethnic background youth. Diagnoses of depression, ADHD/ADD, and FASD demonstrated significant differences between groups. Half of the Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth were diagnosed with depression, compared to only 7.7% of Native/Métis and 1st or 2nd generation ix immigrant, other ethnic background youth. Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth were most likely to have a diagnosis of ADHD/ADD (58.3%), compared to only 7.7% of 1st or 2nd generation, other ethnic background youth, and also had the highest proportion of FASD diagnoses – 25%, compared to 2% of Canadian born youth, 7.7% of Native/Métis, and 0% of 1st or 2nd generation, other ethnic background youth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".