Risk Assessment: Patient and Detainee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Risk assessment is required in a variety of legal and clinical settings. Nevertheless, there is still substantial disagreement about its scientific validity and how best to implement it into practice, which has led to extensive empirical research into its tenability. Violence risk factors can be grouped into four categories: (i) dispositional, reflecting personal traits and tendencies to act in a particular way; (ii) historical, indexing events in the past that may predispose a person to become violent; (iii) contextual, referring to elements in the current environment that are conducive to violence; and (iv) clinical, including features of mental illness, level of functioning, and substance abuse. Over the years the primary goal of risk assessment has shifted from simple determination of who would become violent in the future, to risk management, which allows for reduction of violence. There are two primary approaches to risk assessment: unstructured, based solely on clinical experience and professional opinion, and structured, which requires professionals to follow specific rules of identification and definition of risk factors. Structured risk assessment in turn includes two approaches: (i) actuarial, which relies on an algorithm to combine risk factors, which enter the final decision regarding future violence; and (ii) structured professional judgments (SPJs), which allow the decision maker to consider how nomothetically supported risk factors are relevant to a given individual, and what management strategies would mitigate risk. Commentary and research addressing the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches is provided.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".