Examining the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) and its Association with Recidivism Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study serves to examine association between items from the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) and general, violent, and sexual recidivism risk. Police-reported sexual assaults were reviewed and retroactively coded, and the resulting sample included 201 male sex-offenders. Given the sparseness of the available information from police files, a modified 5-item version of the RSVP was used and the items were summed. We found significant results for all three outcomes (i.e., charges for any new offense, any new violent offense, and any new sexually violent offense). We also examined the individual 5 items, and significant results were found across all three recidivism outcomes, with only one item demonstrating significance in general, violent, and sexually violent recidivism. Furthermore, items related to Sexual Violence History significantly predicted new sexually violent charges. The study validates only a portion of the measure, and caution should remain regarding overall utility. Further research is required in this area due to the lack of published data regarding the instrument’s predictive validity. Faculty Mentor: Sandy Jung Department: Psychology
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".