MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166605778 · doi:10.1177/0011000005285877

Sixty-Six Years of Research on the Clinical Versus Actuarial Prediction of Violence

2006· article· en· W2166605778 on OpenAlexaff
N. Zoe Hilton, Grant T. Harris, Marnie E. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Counseling Psychologist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyActuarial scienceActuarial AnalysisMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their meta-analysis of clinical versus statistical prediction models, Ægisdóttir et al. (this issue) extended previous findings of statistical-method superiority across such variables as clinicians’ experience and familiarity with data. In this reaction, the authors are particularly interested in violence prediction, which yields the greatest support for actuarial models. In the past decade, actuarial prediction has continued to improve, but clinicians have not readily adopted these models, and new models have emerged that encourage reliance on unaided clinical judgment. Psychologists have made progress developing and disseminating actuarial risk assessments and should use the most accurate available measure suited to the task.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations100
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Counseling PsychologistSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207