MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261578176 · doi:10.1177/1079063215618377

Utility of the Static-99 and Static-99R With Latino Sex Offenders

2015· article· en· W2261578176 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Leguízamo, Seung C. Lee, Elizabeth L. Jeglic, Cynthia Calkins

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Institute of JusticeState of New Jersey Department of Human Services
KeywordsRecidivismPredictive validityEthnic groupImmigrationPsychologyDemographyPoison controlClinical psychologyMedicineMedical emergencySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The predictive validity of the Static-99 measures with ethnic minorities in the United States has only recently been assessed with mixed results. We assessed the predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99R with a sample of Latino sex offenders ( N = 483) as well as with two subsamples (U.S.-born, including Puerto Rico, and non-U.S.-born). The overall sexual recidivism rate was very low (1.9%). Both the Static-99 measures were able to predict sexual recidivism for offenders born in the United States and Puerto Rico, but neither was effective in doing so for other Latino immigrants. Calibration analyses ( N = 303) of the Static-99R were consistent with the literature and provided support for the potential use of the measure with Latinos born in the United States and Puerto Rico. These findings and their implications are discussed as they pertain to the assessment of Latino sex offenders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207