Utilization and Implications of the Static-99 in Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Static-99 is the most commonly used risk assessment instrument for sexual violence in North America and its results can affect highly consequential decisions made in the criminal and civil justice systems. Despite its influence, few studies have systematically examined how the Static-99 is used by clinicians in practice. The current study compares the Static-99 ratings of clinicians to those of researchers for 100 adult males who completed an outpatient sex offender treatment program and were followed up over an average of about 4 years. Results showed good agreement between the ratings of clinicians and researchers for total scores on the Static-99, as well as for most individual items. Ratings by clinicians tended to be slightly lower than those made by researchers. The predictive validity of ratings made by clinicians and researchers was very similar and moderate in terms of effect size. In 30 cases, clinicians used discretion to "override" or adjust the Static-99 ratings when making final risk judgments, but the predictive validity of the clinical adjusted ratings was worse than that of the original Static-99 ratings made by clinicians. The need for quality assurance and training are discussed along with the need for clear empirically supported guidelines regarding overrides.
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 | 0.137 | 0.478 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".