MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126396765 · doi:10.1177/1079063210384633

Recent Research (N = 9,305) Underscores the Importance of Using Age-Stratified Actuarial Tables in Sex Offender Risk Assessments

2010· article· en· W2126396765 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Wollert, Elliot Cramer, Jacqueline Waggoner, Alex Skelton, James Vess

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersAssociation for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
KeywordsRecidivismLife tableDemographyRisk assessmentSex offenderPsychologyTable (database)Sex offenseStratified samplingActuarial scienceMedicinePsychiatryPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsClinical psychologyStatisticsSexual abuseMedical emergencyPopulationComputer scienceDatabaseMathematicsSociologyComputer securityEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A useful understanding of the relationship between age, actuarial scores, and sexual recidivism can be obtained by comparing the entries in equivalent cells from "age-stratified" actuarial tables. This article reports the compilation of the first multisample age-stratified table of sexual recidivism rates, referred to as the "multisample age-stratified table of sexual recidivism rates (MATS-1)," from recent research on Static-99 and another actuarial known as the Automated Sexual Recidivism Scale. The MATS-1 validates the "age invariance effect" that the risk of sexual recidivism declines with advancing age and shows that age-restricted tables underestimate risk for younger offenders and overestimate risk for older offenders. Based on data from more than 9,000 sex offenders, our conclusion is that evaluators should report recidivism estimates from age-stratified tables when they are assessing sexual recidivism risk, particularly when evaluating the aging sex offender.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207