MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153570031 · doi:10.1177/107906320201400305

A Comparison of Modified Versions of the Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide

2002· article· en· W2153570031 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

VenueSexual Abuse · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologySex offenderSex offenseRisk assessmentPredictive validityClinical psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlSexual abuseMedicineComputer securityMedical emergencyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The predictive validity of 2 risk assessment instruments for sex offenders, modified versions of the Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, was examined and compared in a sample of 258 adult male sex offenders. In addition, the independent contributions to the prediction of recidivism made by each instrument and by various phallometric indices were explored. Both instruments demonstrated moderate levels of predictive accuracy for sexual and violent (including sexual) recidivism. They were not significantly different in terms of their predictive accuracy for sexual or violent recidivism, nor did they contribute independently to the prediction of sexual or violent recidivism. Of the phallometric indices examined, only the pedophile index added significantly to the prediction of sexual recidivism, but not violent recidivism, above the Static-99 alone.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.298 · 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