Mieux saisir les outils actuariels : une analyse factorielle de la Statique-99R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une critique couramment formulée à l’encontre des outils actuariels statiques concerne leur incapacité à éclairer l’intervention, au regard de leurs fondements athéoriques. Dans la cadre d’un effort visant à nuancer cette critique, la présente étude a tenté d’identifier les construits théoriques présents dans la Statique-99R, l’échelle actuarielle de prédiction de la récidive des délinquants sexuels la plus utilisée. Une analyse factorielle exploratoire des items de l’instrument en a extrait trois facteurs : la délinquance sexuelle, la délinquance générale et le jeune âge. Une interprétation de ces facteurs en ce qui a trait aux dimensions psychologiques a été proposée : la délinquance sexuelle en tant qu’indicatrice de déviance sexuelle ou de préoccupations sexuelles et la délinquance générale en tant qu’indicatrice de traits antisociaux et/ou de psychopathie. Les limites et les implications pour de futures recherches sont discutées.
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 | 0.032 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".