YOUTH CUSTODY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES IN CANADA,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998-99, incarceration rates among reporting provinces ranged from 11 young offenders in custody per 10,000 youth in British Columbia to 41 per 10,000 youth in Saskatchewan. Probation rates ranged from 124 young offenders in probation per 10,000 youth in Alberta to 225 per 10,000 in Prince Edward Island. During 1998-99, approximately 78,000 youth admissions to custody or probation took place in Canada. Almost 80 % of these admissions were male. Just over one-half (52%) of admissions were to custody (remand, secure and open custody) while the remaining 48 % were to probation. The majority of youth custody admissions were to remand (60%), followed by open custody (21%) and secure custody (19%). The national rate of youth custody admissions has declined from 182 custody admissions per 10,000 youth in 1997-98 to 164 per 10,000 youth in 1998-99. Among provinces, rates of youth custody admissions ranged from a low of 70 custody admissions per 10,000 youth in Prince Edward Island, to a high of 239 per 10,000 youth in Manitoba. Sentenced custody admissions (i.e., secure and open custody) were most likely to be for property offences (43%). Violent offences accounted for 22 % of sentenced custody admissions, followed by YOA offences (20%), other Criminal Code offences (10%), drug-related offences (2%) and other federal/provincial/municipal offences (2%). A similar offence profile was displayed
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".