MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904850414 · doi:10.22215/etd/2013-09969

A Longitudinal Study of Dynamic Risk, Protective Factors, and Criminal Recidivism: Change Over Time and the Impact of Assessment Timing

2013· dissertation· en· W2904850414 on OpenAlexaff
Laura J. Hanby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismRisk assessmentPredictive validityRisk management toolsDynamic assessmentPsychologyLongitudinal studyRisk factorMedicineClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk assessment and risk management are central to most decisions made about offenders, particularly when considering community release after a period of incarceration. Although the field of risk assessment has progressed considerably, there remain limitations within current practices. The present research uses a variety of sophisticated statistical techniques to examine the systematic assessment and reassessments of risk in a large sample (N = 3498) of New Zealand parolees. The validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR), a measure of dynamic risk and protective factors, was assessed across time in all offenders released on parole. The measure demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, although future research should seek to refine the subscales as suggested by its factor structure. Beyond validating the DRAOR, this study showed that reconvictions and criminal reconvictions during a two-year follow-up period can be accurately predicted from dynamic risk factors and protective factors (as measured by the DRAOR). Stable and acute dynamic risk scores decreased over time while protective factor scores increased, suggesting that the DRAOR is sensitive to change. Recidivists differed from non-recidivists in stable dynamic risk and protective factors in the month prior to follow-up end and in acute dynamic risk in the second month prior to follow-up end. Reconvictions were accurately predicted from monthly average Stable Risk beginning at parole start and continuing for 12 months of assessments, while Protective Factors were predictive for the first 4 months only. These results indicate that the DRAOR has promise as a valid tool for risk assessment and risk management. The findings of this study highlight the mechanisms by which risk changes over time and provides support for a transitional model of offender re-entry focusing on dynamic risk and protective factors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207