MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052086495 · doi:10.1177/0093854813503960

Assessment and Management of Risk for Intimate Partner Violence by Police Officers Using the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk

2013· article· en· W2052086495 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismSAFERRisk assessmentRisk managementPoison controlDomestic violenceHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionRisk management toolsOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPsychologyMedical emergencyMedicinePsychiatryComputer securityBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of intimate partner violence (IPV) typically falls to police. For assistance, officers are increasingly using violence risk assessment tools like the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER). This study replicates the methodology of Belfrage et al. but examines the B-SAFER as used by Swedish police officers when assessing and managing IPV. Results revealed a positive relationship between risk and management. Total scores and overall risk ratings predicted recidivism (AUC [Area under the curve] = .70 and .69, respectively). Finally, a pattern where management recommendations were associated with decreased recidivism in high risk perpetrators but increased recidivism in low risk perpetrators was found. Results validate the use of the B-SAFER by police and reveal mostly comparable findings between the B-SAFER and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide, as examined by Belfrage et al., but suggest that the B-SAFER may be better suited for police.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.337 · 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