MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263920847 · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2015.1114115

A conceptual kaleidoscope: contemplating ‘dynamic structural risk’ and an uncoupling of risk from need

2015· article· en· W2263920847 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Hannah‐Moffat

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Crime and Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismFraming (construction)Criminal justiceKaleidoscopeSociologyCriminologyRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessLaw and economicsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent calls for ‘evidence-based’ approaches have firmly positioned risk assessment as a promising path towards more efficient, unbiased, and empirically based offender management, in custody and in the community. Simultaneously, sociological and critical legal scholars have questioned the focus on individual needs at the expense of wider structural factors’. I will demonstrate the need to reconceptualise risk/need logics and the use of ‘evidence’. I will argue that various criminal justice processes are themselves dynamic criminogenic risks that produce systemic conditions for recidivism and which, if modified, could make a measurable difference in recidivism and other correctional efficiencies. Finally, I will argue that the logic of dynamic risk is transferable to an analysis of socio-structural factors, and that this characterisation can alter the framing of penal subjects, governmental responsibilities, and potentially interrupt the systemically produced criminogenic pathways that perpetuate criminal involvement and marginalisation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations63
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology Crime and LawSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207