MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7019126880

Exploring 'what works' at the Manitoba Youth Centre with young female offenders

2004· dissertation· en· W7019126880 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchAgency (philosophy)Juvenile delinquencyEthnic group
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

new information and skills that will assist them once released back into the community.Group programs also assist young women in changing negative behaviours, strengthening coping skills and problem solving with personal issues.There were three educational objectives in this practicum.First, was to develop knowledge of the youth criminal justice system.This area consists of understanding the philosophy and law behind incarcerating young offenders, exploring their needs and the current intervention models used in addressing the needs and criminal behaviour of female youth.In addition, this area includes knowledge of the mandate of MYC and the process and procedures of entering young women into program intervention.The second area of educational benefit focuses on skills required of group facilitators in delivering group intervention to young incarcerated women.This includes a description of specific skills required for working with incarcerated youth.A number of different intervention techniques and processes were also explored and a method of examining how effective -1-PERSONAL LEARNING OBJECTIVES CHAPTER 1 these techniques was employed.The last objective of this practicum was the central focus of this report.The literature review indicates that afeminist model to intervention with young woman is the most effective.A feminist model proposes three important principles of empowerment, connection and safety as vital in effective groupprogramming for youth.Two main themes were explored.First, was to examine whether or not these principles can be achieved within a correctional setting.Secondly, how would we know if we were achieving empowennent, safety and connection?rehabilitation is best achieved by addressing the needs and circumstances of a young person that are relevant to the young person's offending behaviour".Therefore, programming within youth correctional facilities should be guided by the principles of rehabilitation as enunciated in the YOA.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0330.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→