Prospective Validity of the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR; Worling & Curwen) were collected for a sample of 191 adolescent males who had offended sexually. Adolescents were aged 12 to 19 years (M = 15.34; SD = 1.53) at the time of their participation in a comprehensive assessment. The ERASOR was completed by 1 of 22 clinicians immediately following each assessment. Forty-five adolescents were independently rated by pairs of clinicians, and significant interrater agreement was found for the ERASOR risk factors, the clinical judgment ratings (low, moderate, or high), and a total score. Recidivism data (criminal charges) were subsequently collected from three sources that spanned a follow-up period between 0.1 and 7.9 years (M = 3.66; SD = 2.08). Overall, 9.4% (18 of 191) of the adolescents were charged with a subsequent sexual offense over this time period. A shorter follow-up interval of up to 2.5 years (M = 1.4; SD = 0.71) was also examined. Recidivism data for the shorter follow-up interval were available for a subgroup of 70 adolescents, with a comparable recidivism rate of 8.6% (6 of 70). Clinical judgment ratings, the total score, and the sum of risk factors rated as present were significantly predictive of sexual reoffending for the short follow-up period. The total score and the sum of risk factors were predictive of sexual reoffending over the entire follow-up interval. These results add to the emerging research supporting the reliability and validity of structured risk assessment tools for adolescent sexual recidivism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it