MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152197672 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2013.857740

Assessing Short-term, Dynamic Changes in Risk: The Predictive Validity of the Brockville Risk Checklist

2013· article· en· W2152197672 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Chagigiorgis, Steve F. Michel, Michael C. Seto, Ken Laprade, Adekunle G. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsChamplain Regional CollegeCanadian Mental Health AssociationRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreMarkham Stouffville Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistGeePredictive validityAggressionPsychologyRisk assessmentMedicineGeneralized estimating equationClinical psychologyPsychiatryStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we examined the predictive utility of the Brockville Risk Checklist (BRC), a structured assessment tool for clinical care planning, using a semi-parametric regression technique. We examined BRC scores and the frequency and type of incidents (aggression, noncompliance, etc.) over 13 assessments for 121 psychiatric patients at a medium-secure forensic unit. Most patients were male (95%), on average 40.9 ( SD = 13.0) years old, and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (78%). Generalized estimating equation (GEE; Liang & Zeger, 1986) modeling was used in this study to determine if changes in dynamic risk scores over time predicted outcomes (presence or absence of an incident) during the approximately six-week follow-up period. Results showed that scores on the Harm to Others scale assessed at one case conference significantly predicted changes in aggressive and total incidents recorded in the subsequent case conference. The BRC shows promise as a dynamic measure of inpatient aggression, predicting verbal or physical incidents an average of six weeks later.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.339 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental HealthSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207