MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095402403 · doi:10.1080/00050060500243491

Assessing juvenile offenders: Preliminary data for the Australian adaptation of the youth level of service/case management inventory (Hoge & Andrews, )

2005· article· en· W2095402403 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Psychologist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Justice
KeywordsRecidivismContext (archaeology)JuvenileEconomic JusticePsychologyJuvenile delinquencyMental healthApplied psychologyCriminologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract*Some of the psychometric results were presented by Thompson, A. P., & Pope, Z. (2003). The conceptual and psychometric basis for risk – need assessment in juvenile justice. In M. Katsikitis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 38th APS Annual Conference (pp. 224 – 228). Melbourne: The Australian Psychological Society.The developmental phase and preliminary psychometric data are reported for an Australian adaptation of an assessment inventory for juvenile offenders. Specifically, the Australian Adaptation of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI-AA, Hoge, & Andrews, Citation1995) is used to assess risks, needs and strengths to inform decision making with juvenile offenders. Data from a sample of 290 juvenile offenders were used to analyse item and score characteristics which, with few exceptions, performed in keeping with traditional psychometric standards. Predictive validity in a subsample of 174 males followed for recidivism between 6 and 32 months resulted in a correlation of 0.28 and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.67 for the total score on the inventory. The results and use of the inventory are placed in the context of related developments in other jurisdictions. AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the Collaborative Research Unit of the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice for their assistance in undertaking this research. The opinions here do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, or any of its officers. Zoe Pope is now at Forensic Services, Mental Health ACT, Australia.Notes*Some of the psychometric results were presented by Thompson, A. P., & Pope, Z. (2003). The conceptual and psychometric basis for risk – need assessment in juvenile justice. In M. Katsikitis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 38th APS Annual Conference (pp. 224 – 228). Melbourne: The Australian Psychological Society.1 Apart from suiting the Australian context, the adaptation was needed to accommodate, in particular, an older age-range. The Canadian inventory was developed for use with 12 – 16-year-old offenders and norms are for 12 – 17 years. In NSW, a single government department deals with 10 – 18-year-old offenders.2 There were seven instances in which the time to reconviction was less than 2.5 months. It is possible that these were outstanding rather than new charges. Reported predictive validity analysis included these cases, as the results were virtually identical to when they were excluded.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.506
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.073 · 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