MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922066992 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2019.1580803

Profiles of SAVRY risk and protective factors within male and female juvenile offenders: A latent class and latent transition analysis

2019· article· en· W2922066992 on OpenAlexaff
Ed L. B. Hilterman, Jeroen K. Vermunt, Tonia L. Nicholls, Ilja L. Bongers, Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent class modelRecidivismJuvenileDemographyPsychologyRisk assessmentRisk modelClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineBiologyStatisticsRisk analysis (engineering)SociologyMathematicsEcologyComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This longitudinal study explored the existence of, and the transition between, latent classes based on risk/need domains of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). The study included 4,267 male and 661 female justice-involved juveniles who had at least one SAVRY assessment completed between 2006 and 2011. A three-step approach was used for the latent class analyses (LCA): (1) A standard LCA estimated the classes; (2) the class-membership was determined; and (3) latent transition analyses estimated the likelihood of transition between the subgroups. For male adolescents, five latent classes were identified: (a) low risk/needs (36%); (b) low-moderate risk/needs (26%); (c) moderate risk/needs (11%); (d) moderate-high risk/needs (19%); and (e) high risk/needs (8%). For female adolescents, three subgroups were identified: (a) low risk/needs (30%); (b) moderate risk/needs (51%); and (c) high risk/needs (19%). Recidivism rates differentiated the subgroups, and the likelihood of transition within a 12-months timeframe was low.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental HealthSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207