Discussion and Clinical Commentary on Issues in the Assessment and Prediction of Dangerousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter underscores the most salient and clinically pertinent elements of the book. We have chosen to organize this commentary according to components of the standard clinical evaluation process. Sociodemographic Data The data invariably suggest that perpetrators of violent acts are more likely to be young, male, single, limited in educational attainment, and from disadvantaged backgrounds. One has to remember that this is a general trend, and practice shows that many offenders do not necessarily correspond to these characteristics. Medical History With or without a history of violence, the clinical assessment of dangerousness must involve procedures that rule out organicity. Is there a head injury in the physical history of the individual that may have resulted in brain damage or dysfunction? As mentioned in Chapter 6, physical anomalies of the brain present a greater risk for violence. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that the inherently aggressive individual placed himself in a situation for possible head injury (i.e., reckless driving, barroom brawls, missed suicide attempts, acts of revenge, etc.).Regardless of your viewpoint on the chicken or egg question, the presence and proper assessment of organicity has true implications for patient evaluation and management (Tardiff, 1992). Different signs and symptoms with respect to orientation (person, place, time), behavior, affect, and thought and perceptual processes help localize specific cerebral areas of malfunction. Saver, Salloway, Devinsky, and Bear (1996) have described the possible organic causes associated with violent behavior.
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 | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".