Poster presented at the 111 th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and Ron Richardson for their assistance. This study examined the relationship between adolescent (10-17 years) criminal offending and adult (18-33 years) offending. The sample comprised 378 Canadian male offenders whose criminal trajectory was tracked for an average of 12.1 years (range = 5.8- 22.8), from adolescence into adulthood. Their mean age at the time of the most recent follow-up (March 17, 2001) was 27.5 years (range = 22.2- 33.5). The sample was divided into low and high rate offenders, based on adolescent convictions. Using rates of adolescent offending, separate Cox Proportional-Intensity Regression models were conducted within each group to predict adult offence rates for five types of offences (property, violent, sex, drug, and technical violations). The results indicated a high degree of continuity for property, drug, and sex offences. As well, late adolescence drug offences increased the likelihood of adult property offences. Both adult violent and technical offences were predicted by a range of adolescent offence types. The implications of these findings for advancing the criminal career concept are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.644 | 0.288 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".