MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1770004977 · doi:10.1080/13218719.2015.1081316

The Robustness of the Early and Late Start Typology of Criminal Behaviour in Major Mental Disorder: A Conceptual Replication

2015· article· en· W1770004977 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josanne D. M. van Dongen, Melissa Hendry, Kevin S. Douglas, Nicole Buck, H.J.C. van Marle

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Psychology and Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyPsychologySample (material)PsychiatryClinical psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the early and late start typology of criminal behaviour in major mental disorder can be generalized to different populations than evaluated to date and is replicable in two different countries. A Dutch forensic sample (Sample 1) consisted of 260 reports to the court with early start offenders (n = 62) and late start offenders (n = 198). A Canadian civil psychiatric sample (Sample 2) consisted of file information collected from 78 involuntarily hospitalized civil psychiatric patients with an early start group (n = 38) and a late start group (n = 40). In both samples, early and late starters were compared on different domains. Results showed that in general, early starters have a higher risk of having problems in different domains. There were also differences in the early and late start typology between the Dutch and Canadian samples. Our results partially support the early and late starter typology within two different samples. This study showed that early starters typically have a higher risk of problems in different domains. This highlights the importance of different risk management and treatment strategies for both the early start and the late start group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry Psychology and LawSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207