MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101451172 · doi:10.1177/0093854805278411

Comparative Validity Analysis of Multiple Measures of Violence Risk in a Sample of Criminal Offenders

2005· article· en· W2101451172 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

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyPsychopathyPredictive validityPsychopathy ChecklistRisk assessmentPopulationPoison controlClinical psychologyChecklistInjury preventionPsychiatryAntisocial personality disorderSocial psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyPersonalityEnvironmental healthComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the predictive validity of multiple indices of violence risk among 188 general population criminal offenders: Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) Violence Risk Assessment Scheme, Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), Violent Offender Risk Assessment Scale (VORAS), Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), and Screening Version (PCL:SV). Several indices were related to violent recidivism with large statistical effect sizes: HCR-20 (Total, Clinical and Risk Management scales, structured risk judgments), VRAG, and behavioral scales of psychopathy measures. Multivariate analyses showed that HCR-20 indices were consistently related to violence and that the VRAG entered some analyses. Findings are inconsistent with a position of strict actuarial superiority, as HCR-20 structured risk judgments—an index of structured professional or clinical judgment—were as strongly related to violence.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.206 · 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