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 OpenAlexaff
Marc T. Swogger, Zach Walsh, Michael Christie, Brittany M. Priddy, Kenneth R. Conner

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.050
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

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

Citations77
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAggressive BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207