MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081379162 · doi:10.1177/0886260507300208

The Myth of Offenders' Deception on Self-Report Measure Predicting Recidivism

2007· article· en· W2081379162 on OpenAlexaff
Wagdy Loza, Amel Loza-Fanous, Karen Heseltine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsEmployment and Social Development CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeceptionRecidivismPsychologyPresentation (obstetrics)Social psychologyVulnerability (computing)Applied psychologyClinical psychologyMedicineComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies were conducted to investigate the vulnerability of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) to deception and self-presentation biases. The SAQ is a self-report measure used to predict recidivism and guide institutional and program assignments. In the first study, comparisons were made between 429 volunteer offenders who completed the SAQ for research purposes and 75 offenders who completed the SAQ as a part of the psychological assessments process required for consideration for early release. In the second study, 106 participants over two sessions completed the SAQ and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Participants completed both measures under two separate sets of instructions: (a) Answers would be used for research purposes, and (b) answers would be used for making decisions about their release to the community. Results from both studies reaffirmed previous findings that the SAQ is not vulnerable to deception, lying, and self-presentation biases.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207