Évaluation de la validité prédictive de neuf instruments chez les agresseurs sexuels adultes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un large éventail d’instruments s’offre aux cliniciens pour évaluer le risque que posent les délinquants sexuels. La présente étude vise à comparer la validité prédictive de huit instruments (VRAG, SORAG, RRASOR, Statique-99, Statique-2002, RM2000, MnSOST–R et SVR-20) et un outil de référence (PCL-R) selon quatre types de récidive (nuisance sexuelle, récidive sexuelle, récidive violente non sexuelle et récidive non violente et non sexuelle) et pour trois groupes d’agresseurs sexuels. Les résultats indiquent que ces outils ont une validité prédictive marginale à modeste en ce qui concerne la récidive sexuelle. Cependant, une étude plus détaillée en fonction du type d’agresseurs indique une plus grande efficacité de ces instruments pour la récidive sexuelle chez les agresseurs d’enfants et pour la récidive non sexuelle chez les agresseurs de femmes. Les outils actuariels ne permettent de prédire aucune forme de récidive chez les agresseurs mixtes.
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 | 0.025 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".