Predictive Accuracy of Dynamic Risk Factors for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Sex Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Aboriginal offenders are overrepresented in Canadian prisons, there is limited research examining the extent to which commonly used risk factors and risk scales are applicable to Aboriginals. Aboriginal (n = 88) and non-Aboriginal (n = 509) sex offenders on community supervision were compared on the dynamic risk factors of STABLE-2007. Data on sexual, violent, any crime, and any recidivism (including breaches) were collected with an average follow-up of 3.4 years. Aboriginal offenders scored significantly higher than non-Aboriginal offenders on STABLE-2007 total scores and on several items measuring general criminality. STABLE-2007 did not significantly predict recidivism with Aboriginal offenders (although it did for non-Aboriginals). The general antisociality items were generally significantly less predictive for Aboriginals than non-Aboriginals, whereas items assessing sexual self-regulation and relationship stability predicted similarly for both groups. These exploratory results suggest that Aboriginal sex offenders are a higher-needs group but that some STABLE-2007 items are not predictive with this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".