MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963737966 · doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9180-1

Predicting recidivism amongst sexual offenders: A multi-site study of Static-2002.

2009· article· en· W1963737966 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R. Karl Hanson, L. Maaike Helmus, David Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and Human Behavior · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsPublic Safety Canada
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilWisconsin Department of Health ServicesPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyDanishSex offenseSample (material)Risk assessmentPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsDemographyClinical psychologySexual abuseEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer securityComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The predictive accuracy of Static-2002 (Hanson & Thornton, Notes on the development of Static-2002 (Corrections Research User Report No. 2003-01), 2003) was examined in eight samples of sexual offenders (five Canadian, one U.S., one U.K., one Danish; total sample of 3,034). Static-2002 showed moderate ability to rank order the risk for sexual, violent and general (any) recidivism (AUCs of .68, .71, and .70, respectively), and was more accurate than Static-99. These findings support the use of Static-2002 in applied assessments. There were substantial differences across samples, however, in the observed sexual recidivism rates. These differences present new challenges to evaluators wishing to use actuarial risk scores to estimate absolute recidivism rates.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations115
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw and Human BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207