MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133547538 · doi:10.26108/vw7p-va59

Trauma, social support and substance abuse in relation to recidivism in Canadian women offenders

2002· article· en· W7133547538 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeannette L. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismConvictionSubstance abuseAlcohol abuseScale (ratio)Social supportMultilevel modelPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TRAUMA, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN RELATION TO RECIDIVISM OF CANADIAN WOMEN OFFENDERS The purpose of this study was to examine the hypothesis that Canadian federally sentenced women offenders who have experienced trauma, have decreased social support and have substance abuse problems will have increased recidivism rates. A national sample of 74 women was obtained representing the Atlantic Region, Quebec Region, Ontario Region, Prairie Region and Pacific Region. Measures included a trauma scale, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), the Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS), and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-20). Recidivism data was gathered from the computerized databank used by the Correctional Services of Canada known as the Offender Management System (OMS). Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted and while the overall hypothesis was not met, drug use/abuse was found to significantly predict both conviction rates and readmission rates. In addition, trauma was found to significantly predict alcohol use/abuse.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207