Predicting Institutional Sexual Misconduct by Adult Male Sex Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Static-99R has been found to be a robust measure of long-term risk to reoffend among adult male sex offenders, few studies have investigated the relationship between Static-99R scores and institutional (i.e., prison) behavior. The current study sought to address this gap in the research by testing the ability of the Static-99 and Static-99R to predict five types of institutional misconduct: (a) sexual, (b) violent (nonsexual), (c) nonviolent (nonsexual), (d) drug-related, and (e) any nonsexual. Results indicate that the Static-99/99R may be useful as predictors of institutional misconduct and, therefore, as a risk classification measure for prisons to protect both staff and inmates and improve institutional environments.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Prediction of prison misconduct by sex offenders; 'misconduct' is institutional behaviour, not research misconduct.
This evaluates a risk assessment measure for predicting prison misconduct, not research practice.
Forensic psychology prediction of institutional sexual misconduct; not research as object.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".