MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068432208 · doi:10.1177/0093854803256448

More Evidence for the Validity of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire for Predicting Violent and Nonviolent Recidivism

2003· article· en· W2068432208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wagdy Loza, Amel Loza-Fanous

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyConvictionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPoison controlClinical psychologyOccupational safety and healthPredictive validityPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this research was to examine the effectiveness of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) in predicting release outcome during a 5-year period. The SAQ is a quantitative risk-need instrument consisting of 72 items that constitute eight subscales. The SAQ was administered to 305 federally sentenced Canadian male offenders prior to their release into the community. They were followed up for 60 months at 4-month intervals. Outcome criteria measures were violent recidivism, commission of a new offense, general recidivism (returning to any form of custody), and any failure (a composite measure recording failure on any of the following variables: negative parole reports, violation of parole conditions, incurring new charges, or a new conviction). Results demonstrated that the SAQ has adequate predictive validity during the 5-year period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207