MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985598525

Effects on Remorse of Death Row Inmates

2019· article· en· W2985598525 on OpenAlexaff
Nirudika Velupillai, Kimberly Kroetch, Kate Dominguez

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemorsePrisonLeverage (statistics)Logistic regressionPsychologyRace (biology)Criminal justiceDemographyStatisticsSocial psychologyCriminologyMathematicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to find a model capable of predicting the remorse felt by a death row inmate prior to their execution. The original dataset, compiled by Nguyen, My Khe (2017) from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, consisted of 21 different variables, of which race, native county, previous crime, time spent in prison, number of victims, and percent of female victims were focussed on as predictors. The presence of apology in the final statement of the offenders (a binary measure) was used as the response variable. The chosen variables underwent several tests in SPSS including crosstabs to assess the association between the predictors and response. Several logistic regression models were fitted and compared to evaluate the influence of the predictors on the response variable; this process included both forward selection and backward elimination procedures. Finally, measures such as Cook’s Distance, Leverage and DFBetas were calculated to identify the existence of influential observations. Ultimately, the results were inconclusive. The final fitted model, which included race, time spent in prison, an interaction between race and time spent in prison, and number of victims, was questionable and could not be recommended for predictive purposes.   Faculty Mentor: Karen Buro Department: Statistics

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207