Very early predictors of conduct problems and crime: results from a national cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Longitudinal research has produced a wealth of knowledge about individual, family, and social predictors of crime. However, nearly all studies have started after children are age 5, and little is known about earlier risk factors. METHODS: The 1970 British Cohort Study is a prospective population survey of more than 16,000 children born in 1970. Pregnancy, birth, child, parent, and socioeconomic characteristics were measured from medical records, parent interviews, and child assessments at birth and age 5. Conduct problems were reported by parents at age 10, and criminal convictions were self-reported by study members at ages 30-34. RESULTS: Early (up to age 5) psychosocial risk factors were strong predictors of conduct problems and criminal conviction. Among pregnancy and birth measures, only prenatal maternal smoking was strongly predictive. Risk factors were similar for girls and boys. Additive risk scores predicted antisocial behaviour quite strongly. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors from pregnancy to age 5 are quite strong predictors of conduct problems and crime. New risk assessment tools could be developed to identify young children at high risk for later antisocial behaviour.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".