MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171585725 · doi:10.1177/0886260513517551

Predicting Treatment Attrition Among Seriously Violent Offenders

2014· article· en· W2171585725 on OpenAlexaff
Daryl G. Kroner, Jenelle Power, Masaru Takahashi, A. I. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionPsychologyCriminal behaviorJuvenile delinquencyViolent crimeHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlInjury preventionSuicide preventionClinical psychologyCriminologyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment completion by violent offenders results in fewer victims and less violence in society. As researchers and members of society, we have a compelling interest in finding ways to keep violent male offenders in effective treatment programs. This study examines file-rated predictors of treatment attrition from an institutionally based program for persistently violent offenders. Each of the three prediction models of institutionally based treatment attrition included the predictors of motivation for assistance and prior treatment dosage: (a) the past criminal behavior model, (b) the recent antisocial behavior model, and (c) the non-antisocial instability model. Recent antisocial behavior did not improve the prediction of treatment attrition over the past criminal behavior model. Motivation for assistance did not make a contribution in the recent antisocial behavior or the non-antisocial instability models while prior treatment dosage consistently contributed to the prediction of attrition across the models. Recent non-antisocial behavior is important to offender treatment attrition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207