MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121796380 · doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9022-3

Violent Sex Offenses: How are they Best Measured from Official Records?

2006· article· en· W2121796380 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and Human Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
FundersSolar Energy Technologies Office
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologySex offenderSex offenseLegislationStatuteCriminologyReferralPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionClinical psychologySocial psychologySexual abuseMedical emergencyLawMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States, sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment statutes generally require assessment of an offender's risk of subsequent sexual violence. Current actuarial methods for predicting sexual reoffending were actually designed to predict something else-charges or convictions for offenses deemed sexual based on information obtained from police "rapsheets" alone. This study examined the referral and past offenses of 177 sex offenders. Results showed that police rapsheets (and data based on them) underestimated the number and severity of sexually motivated violent offenses for which sex offenders were actually apprehended. Rapsheet violent offenses seemed a more accurate index of the conduct addressed by SVP legislation than were rapsheet sex offenses. We suggest that, when evaluating sex offenders for SVP status, actuarial instruments designed to predict violent recidivism (as measured by rapsheet violent reoffenses) might be preferable to those designed to predict sexual recidivism (as measured by rapsheet sexual reoffenses).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.258 · 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