MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130179155 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v5n1p87

A Critical Review of Research Methods Used in: “Use of Risk Assessment Instruments to Predict Violence and Antisocial Behavior in 73 Samples Involving 24,827 People”

2012· review· en· W2130179155 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Renee Ann Pistone

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTragedy (event)PsychologyPersonalityWarning systemHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionBig Five personality traitsWarning signsCriminologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our society requires that experts predict incidences of violence with greater speed and accuracy. We have seen the rise in violence that is random and public. The shootings leave society wondering how could this tragedy have been prevented. Why were the warning signs ignored? This article posits that considering personality traits along with other risk assessments can help make psychologists better predictors of violent behavior.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.500
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.158 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207