MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044569248 · doi:10.1177/0093854809332283

Aging Versus Stable Enduring Traits as Explanatory Constructs in Sex Offender Recidivism

2009· article· en· W2044569248 on OpenAlexaff
Howard E. Barbaree, Calvin M. Langton, Ray Blanchard, James M. Cantor

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismDeviance (statistics)Sex offenderPsychologySex offensePredictive validityPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionClinical psychologyRisk assessmentSuicide preventionDemographyDevelopmental psychologySexual abuseMedicineMedical emergencyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates whether sex offenders' age at release from custody affects their likelihood of reoffending. The participants were 468 men with a mean follow-up (time at risk) of just more than 5 years after release. Items from the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, the Rapid Risk Assessment of Sexual Offense Recidivism, the Static-99, and the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Test—Revised were coded. Results show that the predictive ability of items tapping antisocial behavior is inflated by their association with age at release, whereas the predictive ability of items tapping sexual deviance is diminished by that association. An assessment instrument comprising an age-corrected antisocial behavior scale, an age-corrected sexual deviance scale, and an age at release scale predicted recidivism as well as the best existing actuarial instruments. Cox regression analysis shows that age at release provided unique and significant predictive ability over and above age-corrected antisocial behavior and age-corrected sexual deviance combined.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207