MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099913945

Highlights

2007· article· en· W7099913945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemand (court procedure)Community serviceSuicide preventionInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• In 2004/2005, there were about 31,700 young persons (aged 12 to 17 years) admitted to correctional services. Of those, 15,900 (50%) admissions were to custody and 15,800 (50%) admissions were to community supervision, with the majority (12,900 or 81%) of community supervision admissions being to probation. • There were approximately 2,200 admissions to each of secure and open custody. The majority of admissions to custody (72 % or 11,500) were to remand (pre-trial detention). • Although admissions to remand decreased 7 % from 2003/2004, as a proportion of total admissions to correctional services it was up to 36 % in 2004/2005, from 34 % in the previous year. • Aboriginal youth are highly represented within correctional services. Nearly one-third of all females and just over one-in-fi ve males admitted to sentenced custody were Aboriginal. Overall, Aboriginal youth made up one-quarter of all sentenced custody admissions in 2004/2005, yet they represent approximately 5 % of the total youth population. • On any given day in 2004/2005, there were approximately 13,100 young persons either in custody or under supervised probation in Canada. The majority of young persons in correctional services were on probation (87%), while 10 % were in sentenced custody, and 3 % were in remand. • Coinciding with a decline in the youth crime rate, both the total rate of youth incarceration (sentenced custody and remand) and the probation rate decreased in 2004/2005 – by 10 % and 16 % respectively. Accessing and ordering information This product, catalogue no. 85-002-XIE, is available for free in electronic format. To obtain a single issue, visit our website at www.statcan.ca and select Publications. ISSN 1209-6393 This product, catalogue no. 85-002-XPE, is also available as a standard printed publication at a

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5100.258

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207