Comparing theories' performance in predicting violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stakes of choosing the best theory as a basis for violence prevention and offender rehabilitation are high. However, no single theory of violence has ever been universally accepted by a majority of established researchers. Psychiatry, psychology and sociology are each subdivided into different schools relying upon different premises. All theories can produce empirical evidence for their validity, some of them stating the opposite of each other. Calculating different models with multivariate logistic regression on a dataset of N = 21,312 observations and ninety-two influences allowed a direct comparison of the performance of operationalizations of some of the most important schools. The psychopathology model ranked as the best model in terms of predicting violence right after the comprehensive interdisciplinary model. Next came the rational choice and lifestyle model and third the differential association and learning theory model. Other models namely the control theory model, the childhood-trauma model and the social conflict and reaction model turned out to have low sensitivities for predicting violence. Nevertheless, all models produced acceptable results in predictions of a non-violent outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".