MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Men with Schizophrenia Who Behave Violently: The Usefulness of an Early- Versus Late-Start Offender Typology

2001· article· en· W2048848559 on OpenAlexaff
Anders Tengström, Sheilagh Hodgins, Gunnar Kullgren

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersRiksbankens Jubileumsfond
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyTypologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryForensic psychiatryAntisocial personality disorderClinical psychologyInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persons who develop schizophrenia are more likely than nondisordered persons to commit crimes. It is important to investigate those who offend, in order to develop treatment programs that effectively prevent recidivism, and eventually, early childhood violence prevention programs. Recent studies have shown that among offenders with major mental disorders, there are two groups: early starters, who begin their criminal careers in adolescence; and late starters, who first offend as adults. The present study examined 272 violent male offenders with schizophrenia in Sweden who underwent a pretrial psychiatric assessment between 1988 and 1995. Early- and late-start offenders were found to present differences in behavior, comorbid disorders, personality traits, and referrals for treatment in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Their parents also differed. The findings have implications for treatment and management of offenders with schizophrenia, for risk assessment, and for prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations117
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207