MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139524302 · doi:10.1177/0093854814553222

Using Dynamic Factors to Predict Recidivism Among Women

2014· article· en· W2139524302 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leigh Greiner, Moira A. Law, Shelley L. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismMarital statusPsychologyPoison controlRisk assessmentHuman factors and ergonomicsProportional hazards modelClinical psychologyDemographyMedicinePopulationMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthComputer securityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a sample of 497 Canadian women released into the community from federal prisons, this study examined the extent to which seven dynamic risk factors prospectively assessed at 6-month intervals (four waves) change over time and predict recidivism. Results obtained from a series of within-subject ANOVAs indicate that with the exception of substance abuse, all dynamic risk factors (i.e., employment, marital/family, community functioning, personal/emotional, criminal associates, and criminal attitudes) decreased among those offenders who did not recidivate. In addition, results obtained from a series of Cox regression survival analyses with time-dependent covariates also indicate that proximal assessments of dynamic risk predict recidivism more strongly than more distal assessments of dynamic risk. Employment and associates were the strongest dynamic predictors of recidivism, whereas the remaining factors were weak-to-moderate predictors of recidivism. This study lends support to the utility of repeatedly assessing dynamic risk factors among female offender populations.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations52
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207