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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
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