Evaluating Risk Assessments Among Sex Offenders: A Comparative Analysis of Static and Dynamic Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two studies, the predictive accuracy and the incremental validity of different dynamic risk assessment measures were examined.In Study 1, the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR), which is a measure of dynamic risk and protective factors, was examined with a sample of 203 male adult sexual offenders.The results demonstrated that the DRAOR significantly predicted technical violations, but failed to significantly predict sexual recidivism.Further, the DRAOR made a significant incremental contribution over the Static-99R for predicting technical violations.In Study 2, the Stable-2007 and Acute-2007, which were designed to assess dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism among male adult sexual offenders, were examined with a sample of 207 sex offenders.Results showed that both dynamic measures significantly predicted technical violations, but demonstrated weak predictive accuracy for sexual reoffense.The Stable-2007 and Acute-2007 also added incremental validity to the prediction of technical violations over and above the Static-99R.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".