MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151883606 · doi:10.1177/009385480102800406

Evaluating the Predictive Accuracy of Six Risk Assessment Instruments for Adult Sex Offenders

2001· article· en· W2151883606 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismSex offenderRisk assessmentPsychologySex offensePsychopathy ChecklistPrisonPoison controlChecklistInjury preventionPsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyCriminologySexual abuseComputer securityAntisocial personality disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five actuarial instruments and one guided clinical instrument designed to assess risk for recidivism were compared on 215 sex offenders released from prison for an average of 4.5 years. The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, Rapid Risk Assessment of Sexual Offense Recidivism, and Static-99 predicted general recidivism, serious (violent and sexual) recidivism, and sexual recidivism. The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised and a guided clinical assessment (Multifactorial Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidivism) predicted general recidivism but did not significantly predict serious or sexual recidivism. On its own, the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised predicted general and serious recidivism but not sexual recidivism. The results support the utility of an actuarial approach to risk assessment of sex offenders.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.330 · 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