MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2292503671

Clozapine's Effect on Recidivism Among Offenders with Mental Disorders.

2016· article· en· W2292503671 on OpenAlexaff
Mansfield Mela, Gu Depiang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismClozapinePsychiatryPsychologyConvictionAntipsychoticMental illnessClinical psychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Mental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental disorder is associated with criminal reoffending, especially violent acts of offending. Features of mental disorder, psychosocial stresses, substance use disorder, and personality disorder combine to increase the risk of criminal recidivism. Clozapine, an atypical antipsychotic, is indicated in the treatment of patients with psychotic disorders. This article is the report of a community follow-up study of a matched control of those treated with clozapine (n = 41) and those treated with other antipsychotics (n = 21). Rates of reoffending behavior in the general, nonviolent, violent, and sexual categories were calculated after two years of follow-up. Although not statistically significant, the two-year criminal conviction rates of those treated with other antipsychotics in all offense categories except sexual reoffending were two-fold higher than in those treated with clozapine. The time from release to the first offense and crime-free time in the community were significantly longer in the clozapine group. By prolonging the time it takes from release to first offense, clozapine confers additional crime-reduction advantages.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→