Integrated offender administration through correctional case management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research into case management was made necessary by the emphasis that the South African prison authorities of today placed on the rehabilitation of offenders. The lack of respect for human dignity, the need to reduce crime in South African prisons and the successful reintegration of offenders into the community are some of the reasons why the research became important. The idea behind introducing case management is to bring back humanity to the offender; to make the offender part of a team which is working towards a mutual goal: to promote the well being of the offender. Topics addressed include the case management process as a sub-system of sentence planning, the role of the correctional officer and the role of the offender and the community in the successful implementation of case management in prisons. \n \nThe philosophy of case management is also spelled out in the study, covering the implementation of case management within the criminal justice system in Australia, Canada, United States of America, South Africa and the United Kingdom. During any process of incarceration, documentation forms an integral part of the process and in the situation of the case management process, it is just as important. In this study, the researcher discussed those documents that form part of the case file and which play an important role in the successful implementation of case management. \n \nThe importance of case management in prisons as well as the fact that it can be implemented without the support of the unit management approach cannot be overemphasised. The research contributes largely to scientific knowledge in stressing the importance of sentence planning for each offender within the Criminal Justice System. The case file, which includes the individual sentence plan and the active involvement of the correctional officer and the offender, forms a vital part of the management of the rehabilitation of the offender in today's prison systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".