MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149730732 · doi:10.1177/0093854810362342

Neuropsychological and Personality Characteristics of Predatory, Irritable, and Nonviolent Offenders

2010· article· en· W2149730732 on OpenAlexaff
Marc D. Levi, David Nußbaum, Jill B. Rich

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAggressionAngerPsychopathyTypologyPoison controlPersonalityClinical psychologyCognitionNeuropsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article represents an initial attempt to adapt the three most relevant components of Moyer’s animal aggression typology to humans. These include predatory (unemotional, goal-directed), irritable (anger-based), and defensive (fear-based) aggression. As different brain networks are likely involved, the authors hypothesized that executive function and personality tests could differentiate violent from nonviolent criminals and discriminate the types originally classified on the basis of criminal history. Discriminant analyses correctly classified 80% of the violent and nonviolent groups and 74% of the predatory and irritable groups. Of theoretical salience, the predatory group resembled the unimpaired nonviolent group only on the cognitive Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test but was indistinguishable from the impaired irritable aggression group on the Iowa Gambling, suggesting inhibitory deficits primarily in the face of reward opportunity. Implications for the theory and application to risk assessment are 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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