Outcomes of Probation and Conditional Sentence Supervision: An Analysis of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta, 2003/2004 to 2004/2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On an average day in May 2003, the rate of involvement in community correctional supervision per 100,000 adult population ranged from 426 in Alberta to 760 in Newfoundland and Labrador. • Probation comprised the majority of admissions to community supervision (80%) and conditional sentences made up the remainder (20%). • ”Attend counselling ” and “Abstain from use of drugs and/or alcohol ” were optional conditions most frequently attached to a community corrections program. • Overall, 25 % of offenders in Saskatchewan breached a period of community supervision (i.e., failed to complete a period of probation and/or conditional sentence), while 37 % of those in Alberta were breached. • Aboriginal persons had higher rates of breach of a period of community supervision compared to non-Aboriginal persons in both Saskatchewan (32 % versus 16%) and Alberta (52 % versus 33%). Compared to their male counterparts, Aboriginal females and non-Aboriginal females had lower breach rates in both Saskatchewan and Alberta. • Offenders who had a sexual offence, a Criminal Code traffi c offence, or a common assault as their most serious offence had lower rates of breach of a period of community supervision in Saskatchewan and Alberta; offenders who had a break and enter or theft and possession of stolen property had higher rates of breach than the overall rate. • According to results from Saskatchewan, as the number of criminogenic needs1 increased, the rate of breach of a period of community supervision increased. • Among all probation orders completed in Alberta between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2005, 34 % were breached. The rate of breach for conditional sentences in Alberta during this time frame was 25%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".