MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967631753 · doi:10.1023/a:1005482921333

Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales.

2000· article· en· W1967631753 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Karl Hanson, David J. Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and Human Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPredictive validityPsychologyPredictive valueScale (ratio)Risk assessmentSex offenderLegal psychologySex offenseStatisticsDemographyClinical psychologyPoison controlSocial psychologySexual abuseInjury preventionMedicineMathematicsComputer scienceMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study compared the predictive accuracy of three sex offender risk-assessment measures: the RRASOR (Hanson, 1997), Thornton's SACJ-Min (Grubin, 1998), and a new scale, Static-99, created by combining the items from the RRASOR and SACJ-Min. Predictive accuracy was tested using four diverse datasets drawn from Canada and the United Kingdom (total n = 1301). The RRASOR and the SACJ-Min showed roughly equivalent predictive accuracy, and the combination of the two scales was more accurate than either original scale. Static-99 showed moderate predictive accuracy for both sexual recidivism (r = 0.33, ROC area = 0.71) and violent (including sexual) recidivism (r = 0.32, ROC area = 0.69). The variation in the predictive accuracy of Static-99 across the four samples was no more than would be expected by chance.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations1,063
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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