MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111712771 · doi:10.1177/0886260508316478

How Nonrecidivism Affects Predictive Accuracy

2008· article· en· W2111712771 on OpenAlexaffabout
N. Zoe Hilton, Grant T. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismGeneralizability theoryPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionPredictive validityRisk assessmentPsychologySuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthStatisticsMedicineClinical psychologyMedical emergencyDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prediction effect sizes such as ROC area are important for demonstrating a risk assessment's generalizability and utility. How a study defines recidivism might affect predictive accuracy. Nonrecidivism is problematic when predicting specialized violence (e.g., domestic violence). The present study cross-validates the ability of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) to distinguish subsequent recidivists and nonrecidivists among 391 new cases with less extensive criminal records than previous cross-validation samples, base rate=27%, ROC area=.67. Excluding ambiguous nonrecidivists increases the base rate to 33%, ROC area=.74. Random samples of 50 recidivists and 50 unambiguous nonrecidivists yield ROC areas from .71 to .80. Published norms significantly underestimate official recidivism. Ambiguous nonrecidivism is prevalent and leads to underestimating base rates and predictive accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.358
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.358
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207