What Sexual Recidivism Rates Are Associated With Static-99R and Static-2002R Scores?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical actuarial risk tools are routinely used to assess the recidivism risk of adult sexual offenders. Compared with other forms of risk assessment, one advantage of actuarial risk tools is that they provide recidivism rate estimates. Previous research, however, suggests that there is considerable variability in the recidivism rates associated with the most commonly used sexual offender risk assessment tools (Static-99/R, Static-2002/R). The current study examined the extent to which the variability in the recidivism rates across 21 Static-99R studies (N = 8,805) corresponded to the normative groups proposed by the STATIC development group (routine, treatment, high risk/high need). We found strong evidence that routine (i.e., complete) samples were, on average, less likely to reoffend with a sexual offense than offenders in the high-risk/high-need samples (i.e., those explicitly preselected on risk-relevant variables external to STATIC scales). The differences between routine/complete and high-risk/high-need samples, however, were only consistently observed for offenders with low or moderate scores; for offenders with high STATIC scores, the 5-year sexual recidivism rates for these two groups were not meaningfully different. There was only limited evidence to support treatment samples as a distinct sample type; consequently, the use of separate normative tables for treatment samples is not recommended. The current results reinforce the value of regularly updating the norms for empirical actuarial risk tools. Options are discussed on how STATIC scores could be used to inform recidivism rates estimates in applied assessments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".