Cognitive and Personality Factors Associated with Assaultive and Domestic Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evaluation of domestic assaultive (n=46), general assaultive (n= 23) and nonassaultive (19 property offenders) groups was performed to compare cognitive (Test of Nonverbal Intelligence), personality (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), aggression (Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory), and criminal sentiments (Carlson Psychological Survey). Analysis showed minimal significant differences amongst the groups. A significant difference was found for the Verbal Hostility subscale of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. The domestic assaultive offenders were similar to the general assaultive and nonviolent offenders, with a greater disparity for the control group. Furthermore, a significant difference was noted for the Hypochondriasis scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The general assaultive and control (n = 15) groups had similar scores, with the greatest difference found for nonviolent offenders who were least anxious. Discriminant analysis showed group membership could be identified for 89.1% of the domestic assaultive group.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".