Risk-Taking Behaviour and Criminal Responsibility: A Preliminary Investigation with Offenders and Forensic Psychiatric Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated whether individuals found criminally responsible (CR) differ from individuals found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) on behavioural measures of risktaking. Risk-taking was measured using two computerized tasks, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). CR individuals were hypothesized to show greater risk-taking behaviours compared to NCRMD individuals. Performance on the IGT and BART was also hypothesized to predict NCRMD or CR group membership. Thirty-eight forensic psychiatric patients and offenders participated in this study. A t-test and logistic regression were conducted to address these hypotheses. No significant differences in risk-taking were found between NCRMD and CR individuals on the IGT and BART. Further, performance on the IGT and BART did not predict NCRMD or CR group membership. These results suggest that NCRMD and CR individuals are similar in levels of risk and may be similar in other criminogenic needs that have not been studied here. Future research is needed to understand the extent to which the rehabilitative needs of forensic psychiatric patients and offenders overlap.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it