MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1915986699 · doi:10.1002/bsl.2048

Bayes and Base Rates: What Is an Informative Prior for Actuarial Violence Risk Assessment?

2013· article· en· W1915986699 on OpenAlexafffund
Grant T. Harris, Marnie E. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
FundersPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsBayes' theoremPrior probabilityContext (archaeology)Poison controlAxiomComputer scienceEconometricsRisk assessmentActuarial sciencePsychologyBayesian probabilityMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMedicineEconomicsComputer securityMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayes' theorem describes an axiomatic relationship among marginal and conditional proportions within a single "experiment." In many ways, it has been fruitful to greatly extend this idea to the task of drawing inferences from data much more generally. Commonly, what matters is how all prior knowledge is revised (or not) by new findings resulting in posterior (sometimes "subjective") probabilities. And, to address many important problems, it is sensible to conceive of probability in such subjective terms. However, some commentators in the domain of violence risk assessment have assumed an analogous axiomatic relationship among marginals (i.e., priors in the form of base rates) observed in one study and conditionals (i.e., posteriors in the form of revised rates) expected in a separate study or assessment context. We present examples from our own research to suggest this assumption is generally unwarranted and ultimately an unaddressed empirical matter.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.296
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.296
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0090.023
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207