MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153092702 · doi:10.1177/0093854807307521

Assessing Risk for Violence in Adolescents Who Have Sexually Offended

2007· article· en· W2153092702 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
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismJuvenilePsychologyPoison controlSex offenderInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionRisk assessmentJuvenile delinquencySex offenseOccupational safety and healthSexual violenceClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySexual abuseMedical emergencyComputer securityCriminologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the youth justice system has evolved, clinicians have been increasingly asked to make judgments about the likelihood that a youth who has committed a sexual offense will reoffend. However, there is an absence of well-validated tools to assist with these judgments. This study examined the ability of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool—II (J-SORRAT-II), Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II (J-SOAP-II) to predict violent behavior in 169 male youth who were admitted to a residential adolescent sex offender program. Total scores on the SAVRY and J-SOAP-II significantly predicted nonsexual violence but none of the instruments predicted sexual violence. The J-SOAP-II and SAVRY were less effective in predicting violent reoffending in youth aged 15 and younger than in older youth. The implications of these findings 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.327 · 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