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

Characterizing the Value of Actuarial Violence Risk Assessments

2007· article· en· W2152248723 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 · 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.

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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.076
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