MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099188699 · doi:10.1177/088626001016005002

Predicting Violence by Serious Wife Assaulters

2001· article· en· W2099188699 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismWifePsychologyPoison controlPsychopathy ChecklistPopulationChecklistInjury preventionPsychopathySuicide preventionDomestic violenceClinical psychologyOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryPersonalityMedical emergencyDemographyMedicineAntisocial personality disorderSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing violence risk among wife assaulters is receiving increasing attention in the literature, but risk assessment tools specifically for this population are just beginning to be developed. The literature on wife assaulters suggests the importance of antisocial personality and behavior. The present study examines psychopathy; the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), a validated actuarial risk assessment tool for violent recidivism; and motives thought to be related to wife assault, in predicting violent recidivism among 88 men with a history of serious wife assault. Violent recidivism was lower among wife assaulters (24%) than among a larger sample of generally violent offenders (44%). Score on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised was a good predictor of subsequent violence, r = .35, and score on the VRAG was a significantly better predictor, r = .42, area under the curve (AUC) = .75. The prospects for predicting lethal wife assault and violence against specific victims are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · 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