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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".