MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942701101 · doi:10.1177/0093854819846526

Static and Dynamic Assessment of Violence Risk Among Discharged Forensic Patients

2019· article· en· W2942701101 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil R. Hogan, Mark E. Olver

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsRecidivismPredictive validityRisk assessmentChecklistPsychopathy ChecklistPoison controlIncremental validityInjury preventionPsychologyRisk management toolsForensic scienceClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPsychometricsTest validityMedical emergencyComputer securityAntisocial personality disorderComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the predictive validity of structured instruments for violent recidivism among a sample of 82 patients discharged from a maximum security forensic psychiatric hospital. The incremental predictive validity of dynamic pre–post change scores was also assessed. Each of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20 V3 ), Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability, Violence Risk Scale (VRS), and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised was rated based on institutional files. The study instruments significantly predicted community-based violent recidivism (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.68-0.85), even after controlling for time at risk using Cox regression survival analyses. Dynamic change scores computed from the HCR-20 V3 Relevance ratings and from the VRS also demonstrated incremental predictive validity, controlling for baseline scores. The findings provided support for the use of the study instruments to assess violence risk and for the consideration of dynamic changes in risk—provided that valid means of assessment are employed.

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)0.000
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207