MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780324335 · doi:10.1177/1079063217715018

Identifying Criminogenic Needs Using the Personality Assessment Inventory With Males Who Have Sexually Offended

2017· article· en· W2780324335 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandy Jung, Carissa Toop, Liam Ennis

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMacEwan University
FundersMacEwan University
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyPersonalityRisk assessmentClinical psychologyPersonality Assessment InventoryDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the relationships between the scales of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and variables relevant to recidivism risk and criminogenic need to inform clinicians' use of the PAI for purposes of treatment planning and risk management. PAI profiles, risk measure and domain scores, and recidivism data were collected for 158 males who have been convicted of sexually offending. Data were analyzed to investigate whether select clinical scales of the PAI correlated with conceptually relevant domains of risk and/or recidivism. Our findings demonstrated that the antisocial scales were consistently associated with risk constructs and recidivism, while very few clinical and personality scales showed relationships with risk constructs. The PAI seems to include select scales that represent risk-related needs, but also, other scales that may be more related to responsivity issues, and therefore may have utility to address two of the risk, need, and responsivity principles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207