MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413109317 · doi:10.1177/0093854816651656

Developing Nonarbitrary Metrics for Risk Communication

2016· article· en· W2413109317 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Lehmann, David Thornton, L. Maaike Helmus, R. Karl Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsPublic Safety Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyRisk assessmentPercentileSample (material)Poison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsActuarial scienceDemographyRisk analysis (engineering)StatisticsClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthComputer scienceComputer securityMedicineMathematicsEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nominal risk categories for actuarial risk assessment information should be grounded in nonarbitrary, evidence-based criteria. The current study presents numeric indicators for interpreting one such tool, the Risk Matrix 2000, which is widely used to assess the recidivism risk of sexual offenders. Percentiles, risk ratios, and 5-year recidivism rates are presented based on an aggregated sample ( N = 3,144) from four settings: England and Wales, Scotland, Germany, and Canada. The Risk Matrix 2000 Sex, Violence, and Combined scales showed moderate accuracy in assessing the risk of sexual, non-sexual violent, and violent recidivism, respectively. Although there were some differences across samples in the distributions of risk categories, relative increases in recidivism for ascending risk categories were remarkably consistent. Options for presenting percentiles, risk ratios, and absolute recidivism estimates in applied evaluations are offered, with discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of these risk communication metrics.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207