Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The purpose is to present a developmental perspective on biological factors and dangerousness. The developmental perspective proposed is that biological factors and violence can only be understood by considering the dialectical nature of the interactions between physiological and psychological processes and the environmental contexts in which individuals develop. The chapter aims to define domains of behavior relevant to understanding biology and dangerousness; describe biopsychosocial models of dangerousness; present literature on the endocrine and serotonergic systems, autonomic nervous system, and dangerousness; and suggest clinical implications based on what is known about biological processes and dangerousness. Behavioral Domains of Dangerousness and Biological Processes The concept of dangerousness is difficult to define because it entails both psychological and behavioral risks that predispose to physical aggression and violent behavior. Furthermore, violence, aggression, and other forms of antisocial behavior are defined in diverse ways in the literature and tend to refer to constructs rather than specific behaviors. These constructs include antisocial behavior, externalizing behavior, norm breaking, violence, and illegal behavior. In contrast, when biological processes are included in research, measures representing one biological system tend to be considered: Hormones, neurotransmitters, or psychophysiological measures. Thus, conclusions regarding the relationships between interactive biological systems and violence are exceedingly simplistic even though multidimensional behaviors, attitudes, and various forms of violent behavior are immeasurably complex. An added layer of complexity entails the changing phenotypic nature of antisocial behavior throughout development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".