The characteristics and effectiveness of treatment for young sex offenders in Australia and New Zealand: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual offending by young people presents a serious and devastating issue effecting victims, families, and wider society. This has led investigative efforts to understand the efficacy of treatment programs to cease or at minimum reduce sexual recidivism. Evaluations examining treatment efficacy have predominately been conducted in the United States and Canada, with limited research focused exclusively on young sex offenders in Australia and New Zealand. To address the paucity of information, a systematic review of young sex offender treatment research in Australia and New Zealand was conducted. The systematic review employed a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous vetting procedure, which resulted in a summary of data from eight studies of 10 treatment programs. Average across those studies, the sexual recidivism rate was lower for the treatment groups (n = 75, 5.97%), compared to dropouts (n = 25, 10.92%) and treatment refusers (n = 39, 6.93%). Similar results were obtained for studies providing information on non-sexual recidivism. Efficacy however was difficult to ascertain as most evaluations did not report all required data. Therefore, gaps in knowledge and the associated methodological issues of the included studies are outlined. The outcome of this review details recommendations for treatment evaluations in criminology which will allow for more detailed and nuanced information on treatment efficacy. It is anticipated that results and recommendations will guide future efforts to evaluate treatment for young sex offenders, particularly regarding young Indigenous sex offenders
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 | 0.011 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".