ArticleResearch square2026
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This study identifies college-aspiration and college-going conversation subgroups among 15-year-old high school boys (Black, Latino, White) who have been school disciplined and school policed. Methods: Data from 1,520 adolescent boys from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study were used to conduct a latent class analysis examining subgroup differences among Black (n = 803), Latino (n = 421), and White (n = 296) boys regarding their experiences with school discipline, school policing, college aspirations, and college-going conversations. Results: A four-class solution identified four distinct subgroups: (1) Surveilled but Supported, (2) Vicarious Policing, (3) The Criminalized, and (4) The Protected. Covariates included demographics and school connectedness. Auxiliary analyses included multiply imputed R3STEP covariate regression and BCHC sensitivity analysis confirming the primary indicator specification. Conclusion: Educational carcerality has an adverse impact on the college aspirations and college-going conversations among high school boys, especially Black boys. A multidimensional invitational education framework reveals that carceral school policies function as disinviting forces that undermine the college-going process for boys of color.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.