MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155544535 · doi:10.1177/107906320601800408

Different Actuarial Risk Measures Produce Different Risk Rankings for Sexual Offenders

2006· article· en· W2155544535 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuarial scienceRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)PsychologyStatisticsMedicineBusinessComputer scienceMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Percentile ranks were computed for N=262 sex offenders using each of 5 actuarial risk instruments commonly used with adult sex offenders (RRASOR, Static-99, VRAG, SORAG, and MnSOST-R). Mean differences between percentile ranks obtained by different actuarial measures were found to vary inversely with the correlation between the actuarial scores. Following studies of factor analyses of actuarial items, we argue that the discrepancies among actuarial instruments can be substantially accounted for by the way in which the factor Antisocial Behavior and various factors reflecting sexual deviance are represented among the items contained in each instrument. In the discussion, we provide guidance to clinicians in resolving discrepancies between instruments and we discuss implications for future developments in sex offender risk assessment.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.256 · 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