MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972724434 · doi:10.1177/1079063219871572

STABLE-2007 Demonstrates Predictive and Incremental Validity in Assessing Risk-Relevant Propensities for Sexual Offending: A Meta-Analysis

2019· review· en· W2972724434 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew E. Brankley, Kelly M. Babchishin, R. Karl Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityPublic Safety Canada
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyPredictive validityMeta-analysisRisk assessmentSex offenseIncremental validityClinical psychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSexual abuseTest validityPsychometricsMedicineComputer securityMedical emergencyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STABLE-2007 is a measure of risk-relevant propensities for adult males convicted of a sexual offense. This meta-analysis evaluated the ability of STABLE-2007 and its items to discriminate between recidivists and nonrecidivists, and the extent to which STABLE-2007 improves prediction over and above Static-99R. Based on 21 studies (12 unique samples, N = 6,955), we found that STABLE-2007 was significantly and incrementally related to sexual recidivism, violent (nonsexual) recidivism, violent (including sexual) recidivism, and any crime. Scores on STABLE-2007 items and the three STABLE-2000 attitude items also discriminated between individuals who sexually reoffended and those who did not sexually reoffend. These findings support the use of STABLE-2007 in applied risk assessment practice and the interpretation of STABLE-2007 items as indicators of treatment and supervision targets.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.026
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations109
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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