MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Risk–Need–Responsivity Model

2016· other· en· W2547136211 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Abracen, Jan Looman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)ResponsivityVariety (cybernetics)PsychologyRehabilitationRisk analysis (engineering)Applied psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter reviews the available research related to both the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) and Good Lives Models (GLM) of offender rehabilitation. Although it is concluded that both of these models have made contributions to the literature, neither fully accounts for the realities of working with groups of high‐risk, high‐need offenders from the authors' perspective. A revision to the RNR model, based on an integrated approach to assessment and treatment, which we have called the RNR‐I, is proposed. The model accounts for such issues as history of trauma and serious mental illness, issues which are frequently encountered when working with such groups of offenders. The details of this model are described, as are a variety of outcome research by our team which supports the utility of this perspective.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending→French-language works237,207→