Actuarial Assessment of Risk for Reoffense Among Adult Sex Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study extended previous research comparing a set of widely employed actuarial risk assessment schemes as well as a new instrument, the Static-2002, in a sample of 468 sex offenders followed for an average of 5.9 years. All of the risk assessment instruments (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide [VRAG], Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide [SORAG], Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism [RRASOR], Static-99, Static-2002, and Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised [MnSOST-R]) were found to predict the recidivism outcomes for which they were designed. Although significant, indices of accuracy were generally lower than those reported by the developers of these instruments, even under conditions that have been shown to optimize predictive performance. For serious recidivism, the predictive accuracy of the Static-2002 and SORAG was significantly superior to that of the RRASOR, and the SORAG was significantly superior to the MnSOST-R as well. There were no significant differences among instruments in accuracy of predicting sexual recidivism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".