MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969588106 · doi:10.1177/0886260508323668

The Pathways Model of Assault

2008· article· en· W1969588106 on OpenAlexaff
Jemma C. Chambers, Tony Ward, Lynne Eccleston, Mark Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAngerRehabilitationRecidivismConstruct (python library)Poison controlClinical psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSocial psychologyMedical emergencyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on offending behavior rehabilitation suggests that offenders would gain the maximum benefit from programs that reflect the individual needs of different types of offender. Multivariate theories of offending behavior are thus required to inform individualized rehabilitation. The aim of the current study was to construct a multivariate model for the prolific offense of assault. Qualitative methodology was used to construct a descriptive model of assault for 25 adult assault offenders. The model incorporated the development of violent behavior, types of anger, violence motivation, and the assault offense. The model consisted of 14 categories, 10 of which allowed for individual differences in behavior. A total of 35 participant transcripts were then coded through the model where the individual differences occurred. Five main offense types were found. The characteristics of the types of assault offense gave indications for how rehabilitation may be targeted for each group.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.004

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207