Meta-análisis de la reincidencia post-medida en menores infractores en el sistema de Justicia Juvenil español
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El éxito de la Justicia Juvenil reside en la adecuada reinserción de los menores infractores, \nsuponiendo la reincidencia de estos la inefectividad del sistema. En España, trabajos \nprevios señalan que más de un cuarto de esta población comete un nuevo hecho delictivo \ndespués de haber pasado por el sistema penal. El objetivo del presente meta-análisis es \nestimar la tasa de reincidencia post-medida y con ello la eficiencia del sistema de Justicia \nJuvenil español, bajo el paraguas legal de la Ley Orgánica de Responsabilidad Penal del \nMenor, así como las variables moduladoras que influyen en dicha reincidencia. La \nbúsqueda bibliográfica ha brindado 17 trabajos, facilitando 48 índices de tamaño del \nefecto individuales. De los resultados se extrae que la influencia del tipo de medida \nimpuesta, la edad, el género masculino, antecedentes en Justicia Juvenil y violencia en la \ncausa base, actúan como variables moderadoras en la reincidencia. \nSuccess of Juvenile Justice lies within the appropriate reintegration of juvenile offenders, \nwhereas recidivism denotes the ineffectiveness of the system. In Spain, previous studies \nshow that more than a quarter of said population commits a new criminal offense after \nhaving passed through the penal system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to obtain an \nestimate of the rate of post-sentence recidivism under the legal spectrum of the LORPM, \nas well as the modulating variables that influence recidivism. The bibliographic search \nrendered 17 papers, providing 48 individual effect size ratings. The results exhibit that \nthe influence of the type of imposed measure, age, male gender, previous records in \njuvenile justice and violence in the baseline cause, act as moderating variables in \nrecidivism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".