An Empirically Derived Classification System for Juvenile Firesetters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the heterogeneity of juvenile firesetters, the literature lacks empirically based classification systems. Existing typologies have been descriptive, arbitrarily segregate subtypes based on univariate characteristics, and lack empirical validation. In the present investigation, cluster analysis was used to develop a classification of juvenile firesetters based on both fire-specific and general individual and environmental variables associated to firesetting severity and recidivism. Participants included 240 firesetters aged 4 to 17 and primary caretakers who were referred to The Arson Prevention Program for Children. Findings indicate that juvenile firesetters are a heterogeneous group that can be empirically separated into conventional-limited, home-instability-moderate, and multi-risk-persistent firesetters. These subtypes differ on fire-specific characteristics, individual and environmental variables, and firesetting recidivism and general outcome. The implications of this classification system for conducting fire-risk assessments and implementing prevention and treatment strategies are also discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".