MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127733294 · doi:10.1002/ab.21549

Impulsive versus premeditated aggression in the prediction of violent criminal recidivism

2014· article· en· W2127733294 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

VenueAggressive Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsRecidivismAggressionPsychologyPoison controlInjury preventionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past aggression is a potent predictor of future aggression and informs the prediction of violent criminal recidivism. However, aggression is a heterogeneous construct and different types of aggression may confer different levels of risk for future violence. In this prospective study of 91 adults in a pretrial diversion program, we examined (a) premeditated versus impulsive aggression in the prediction of violent recidivism during a one-year follow-up period, and (b) whether either type of aggression would have incremental validity in the prediction of violent recidivism after taking into account frequency of past general aggression. Findings indicate that premeditated, but not impulsive, aggression predicts violent recidivism. Moreover, premeditated aggression remained a predictor of recidivism even with general aggression frequency in the model. Results provide preliminary evidence that the assessment of premeditated aggression provides relevant information for the management of violent offenders.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.293 · 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