Are the Major Risk/Need Factors Predictive of Both Female and Male Reoffending?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) and the Youth version (YLS/CMI) generate an assessment of risk/need across eight domains that are considered to be relevant for girls and boys and for women and men. Aggregated across five data sets, the predictive validity of each of the eight domains was gender-neutral. The composite total score (LS/CMI total risk/need) was strongly associated with the recidivism of males (mean r = .39, mean AUC = .746) and very strongly associated with the recidivism of females (mean r = .53, mean AUC = .827). The enhanced validity of LS total risk/need with females was traced to the exceptional validity of Substance Abuse with females. The intra-data set conclusions survived the introduction of two very large samples composed of female offenders exclusively. Finally, the mean incremental contributions of gender and the gender-by-risk level interactions in the prediction of criminal recidivism were minimal compared to the relatively strong validity of the LS/CMI risk level. Although the variance explained by gender was minimal and although high-risk cases were high-risk cases regardless of gender, the recidivism rates of lower risk females were lower than the recidivism rates of lower risk males, suggesting possible implications for test interpretation and policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".