MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037035371 · doi:10.1177/107906320601800206

Comparison of Two Risk Assessment Instruments for Sexual Offenders

2006· article· en· W2037035371 on OpenAlex
Jan Looman

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

VenueSexual Abuse · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologySample (material)Risk assessmentPredictive validityDemographyClinical psychologyComputer securityComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research examines the predictive validity of the Static-99 and the SORAG in predicting sexual and violent recidivism among a sample of 258 treated high-risk sexual offenders. While the SORAG was found to have moderate predictive accuracy for both sexual and violent recidivism over a 5-year follow-up period, the Static-99 was found to only predict sexual recidivism. As well, the actual recidivism rates in the current sample were compared to the published risk percentages for each of the instruments. For both the Static-99 and the SORAG the current sample re-offended at a lower rate than expected. Possible explanations for this finding are discussed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.353 · 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