Predictive Validity of Risk Assessments in Juvenile Offenders
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the validity and reliability of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) in a sample of Spanish adolescents with a community sanction (N = 105). Self-reported delinquency with a follow-up period of 1 year was used as the outcome measure. The predictive validity of the three measures was compared with the unstructured judgment of the juvenile's probation officer and the self-appraisal of the juvenile. The three measures showed moderate effect sizes, ranging from area under the curve (AUC) = .75 (SAVRY) to AUC = .72 (PCL:YV), in predicting juvenile reoffending. The two unstructured judgments had no significant predictive validity whereas the SAVRY had significantly higher predictive validity compared with both unstructured judgments. Finally, SAVRY protective factor total scores and SAVRY summary risk ratings did not add incremental validity over SAVRY risk total scores. The high base rates of both violent (65.4%) and general reoffending (81.9%) underline the need for further risk assessment and management research with this population.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it