MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008544245 · doi:10.1002/bsl.975

Predictors of recidivism by stalkers: A nine‐year follow‐up of police contacts

2011· article· en· W2008544245 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health CareGovernment of OntarioMontreal Police Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismStalkingConvictionPsychologyPoison controlMental illnessSuicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryCriminal ConvictionOccupational safety and healthSex offenseClinical psychologyMedical emergencyMental healthMedicineSexual abusePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a subsample of a multisite stalking study (Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, & Williams, 2006) comprising 78 offenders from one site, 77% committed new offenses within an average follow-up of 106 months (8.8 years). Over half (56%) were charged for new stalking related offenses and 33% for violent recidivism. Violent reoffending, including sexual offenses, was predicted by risk factors consistent with existing literature: younger age at first conviction, prior release failures, and criminal history. Stalking recidivism was predicted by pre-index offending scores, using the Cormier-Lang, and prior diagnosis of a mental illness. In addition, stalkers with previously diagnosed mental illness had significantly more police contacts as complainants than those without; their recidivism was also more likely to be non-violent.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.248 · 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