Influence of the HCR-20, LS/CMI, and PCL-R on decisions about parole suitability among lifers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among 5,181 inmates indeterminately sentenced to life in California who were evaluated for parole suitability between January 2009 and November 2010, 11% were granted parole. After administration of the HCR-20, LS/CMI, and PCL-R, psychologists judged most inmates (78%) to be at low or moderate risk for future violence. This overall risk rating (ORR) was significantly associated with parole suitability decisions. Moderate to large associations were observed between the ORR and all risk indices. The HCR-20 Clinical and Risk Management scales demonstrated the strongest associations with parole suitability decisions. Among the LS/CMI scales, Procriminal Attitudes and Leisure/Recreation were most predictive of failure to obtain parole. PCL-R scores had little influence on parole suitability decisions beyond the HCR-20 and LS/CMI. Overall, findings suggest parole board members' decisions were consistent with empirically supported practice, in that individuals assessed to be at relatively low risk were far more likely to be granted parole than those assessed to be at moderate or high risk for future 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".