Teachers' Ratings of Childhood Behaviours Predict Adolescent and Adult Crime among 3016 Males and Females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine associations of teacher-rated conduct problems (CP) and hurtful and uncaring behaviours (HUB) at age 6 and 10 with criminal convictions up to age 24 among 1593 males and 1423 females, and to determine whether aggressive behaviour at age 12 mediated the associations of CP and HUB with criminal convictions. METHOD: Teachers assessed HUB and CP at ages 6 and 10 and ratings above the 90th percentile at each age and within each sex were used to assign participants to 1 of 4 groups. Teachers assessed proactive, reactive, indirect, and verbal aggression at age 12. Juvenile and adult criminal records were obtained. RESULTS: High CP and HUB males, aged 6, were 4 times more likely than males with lower ratings to acquire convictions for violent crimes and 5 times more likely to acquire convictions for nonviolent crimes by age 24. High HUB and CP females, aged 6, were 5 times more likely than females with lower ratings to have a conviction for a nonviolent offence by age 24. Among males, both aged 6 and 10, high HUB without CP were associated with elevations at risk of convictions for violent and nonviolent crimes, while among females the elevations at risk were limited to convictions for nonviolent crimes. Different types of aggressive behaviour mediated associations of high HUB and CP with subsequent criminal convictions, but not the association of HUB without CP and crime. CONCLUSIONS: Teachers in elementary schools rated behaviours that, from age 6 onward, significantly predicted criminal convictions into early adulthood.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".