MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998476522 · doi:10.1002/bsl.579

Assessing risk for violence among male and female civil psychiatric patients: the HCR‐20, PCL:SV, and VSC

2004· article· en· W1998476522 on OpenAlexaff
Tonia L. Nicholls, James R. P. Ogloff, Kevin S. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathy ChecklistChecklistPredictive validityPsychiatryPsychopathyMedicinePoison controlOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionClinical psychologyAntisocial personality disorderPsychologyMedical emergencyPersonalityPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the predictive validity of violence risk assessments conducted using the HCR-20, the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV), and by the Violence Screening Checklist (VSC) in a sample of 268 involuntarily hospitalized male and female psychiatric patients. Information pertaining to violence and crime was coded from medical charts and correctional records. The HCR-20/PCL:SV evidenced modest non-significant associations in postdictive assessments of inpatient violence among men. Moderate to strong significant associations were found between the HCR-20/PCL:SV and inpatient violence among women. Pseudo-prospective assessments using the HCR-20 and PCL:SV resulted in moderate to large relationships with violence and crime in men and women following community discharge. It is concluded that the VSC is a promising tool for assessing acute inpatient violence risk with men. Findings offer preliminary validation of the predictive validity of the HCR-20 and PCL:SV with female civil psychiatric patients.

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)0.010
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations246
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207