Comparing Sexual Offenders at the Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario) and the Florida Civil Commitment Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC) continues to be a popular means of managing risk to the community in many U.S. jurisdictions. Most SOCC states report few releases, due in large part to the reluctance of the courts to release sexually violent persons/predators (SVPs). Contemporary risk prediction methods require suitable comparison groups, in addition to knowledge of postrelease behavior. Low SVP release rates makes production of local base rates difficult. This article compares descriptive statistics on two populations of sexual offenders: (a) participants in high-intensity treatment at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC), a secure, prison-based treatment facility in Canada, and (b) SVP residents of the Florida Civil Commitment Center. Results show that these two samples are virtually identical. These groups are best described as "preselected for high risk/need," according to Static-99R normative sample research. It is suggested that reoffense rates of released RTC participants may serve as a comparison group for U.S. SVPs. Given current release practices associated with U.S. SOCC, these findings are of prospective value to clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and triers of fact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".