MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152248723 · doi:10.1177/0093854807307029

Characterizing the Value of Actuarial Violence Risk Assessments

2007· article· en· W2152248723 on OpenAlexaff
Grant T. Harris, Marnie E. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayes' theoremActuarial scienceStatisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)PsychologyConfidence intervalBayesian probabilitySelection biasPoison controlPopulationRisk assessmentRecidivismEconometricsComputer scienceMedicineDemographyMathematicsEconomicsCriminologyArtificial intelligenceMedical emergencySociologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, relative operating characteristic (ROC) statistics are exemplified. Criticisms of actuarials and ROCs as measures of accuracy are discussed—ROC statistics are independent of base rates, but optimal decisions are not. Using sex offenders, the importance of accurate base rate information in the relevant population is examined. Although Bayes affords estimates of posterior probabilities for any base rate, Bayesian corrections can be too extreme in practice. This article illustrates that undesirable posterior probabilities are improved by superior selection ratios and refutes the criticism that “confidence intervals around individual scores” are so large as to make actuarial assessment meaningless. Personal values play a role in forensic decision making, and actuarial methods sharpen the focus on such values.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations102
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207