MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004155641 · doi:10.1177/0306624x06294135

Risk Assessment and Offender–Victim Relationship in Juvenile Offenders

2007· article· en· W2004155641 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Lusignan, Jacques D. Marleau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistPsychologyJuvenile delinquencyPopulationJuvenileClinical psychologyInjury preventionRecidivismPoison controlOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsDemographyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study compares the Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) checklist in a male offender population of 108 adolescents using the relationship between the offender and the victim as a classification factor. Two types of relationship were retained for comparison purposes: family victim/known victim and unknown victim. All adolescents admitted to the Adolescent program of Montréal's Philippe-Pinel Institute from February 1998 to April 2003 were assessed and their families were met. The HCR-20 checklist was completed for each adolescent. Statistically significant differences were observed for the mean rank of the total score of the HCR-20 and two sub-scales, the historical subscale (H) and the risk management subscale (R). The results indicate that the adolescents who victimize strangers have more violent risk factors compared to those who victimize family/known victims. These results have important implications regarding prevention and treatment.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207