A follow-up study of young offenders released from a youth correctional institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents a follow-up study of young offenders released from secure custody at the Manitoba Youth Centre. It attempted to investigate three questions: What are young offenders' experiences within the community following their release from secure custody?, How do young offenders view their program experiences at the Manitoba Youth Centre? and What are the youn offenders' perceptions regarding the benefits of their program experences toward community adjustement? Twenty-eight youths who had been in secure custody for at least three months and discharged to an address in Winnipeg were interviewed. The study based on a qualitative research model describes the experiences, thoughts and perceptions of these young offenders. The results found that the young offenders' experiences within the community were less than ideal. Most of them lived in several different places, were in school or work for short periods of time and were reinvolved with the law. They viewed their program experiences at the Centre as favourable. Yet, the young offenders felt they did not benefit in the community from these program experiences. The conclusion is that the Manitoba Youth Centre needs to consider factors that have been demonstrated to help young offenders adjust in the community. The recommendations start with the development of theories and the incorporation of intervention strategies. Relapse Prevention is proposed as it takes into consideration many of the youths' comments and suggestions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".