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

How Nonrecidivism Affects Predictive Accuracy

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

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
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