Long-Term Predictive Validity of the Risk Matrix 2000
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the predictive accuracy of the Risk Matrix 2000 on an independent sample of 351 sexual offenders, followed in the community for an average duration of 11.4 years (range 0-20 years, SD = 4.4 years). For comparison purposes, this study also examines the predictive accuracy of two other risk assessment instruments, specifically modified versions of the Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Results indicate that the Risk Matrix 2000 demonstrates convergent validity by correlating with the other risk assessment instruments. Moreover, the Risk Matrix 2000 is predictive of recidivism above chance levels, exhibiting medium to large effect sizes, although in general, the other two instruments, particularly the SORAG, are superior. Results also indicate differences in predictive validity when comparing 2-year, 5-year, and variable follow-up periods. Finally, a cumulative meta-analysis compares and integrates current findings with those obtained from the accumulation of previous studies, and new cumulative estimates are provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it