Recidivism risk and criminogenic needs of individuals who perpetrated intimate partner sexual violence offenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the common occurrence of sexual violence in intimate partner violence (IPV) and its association with increased risk of intimate partner homicide, intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV) is often overlooked in the literature. As a result, little is known about risk factors that may be unique to IPSV perpetrators. The present study utilizes a police-reported sample to compare the risk/need profiles of 36 IPSV and 36 IPV perpetrators by creating theoretically meaningful risk composites as proxies for a number of the central eight risk/need areas posited by Andrews and Bonta (2010, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362). Results indicate that the risk/need profiles of the IPSV group are more severe than the IPV group, with higher scores in measures of substance abuse, relationship instability, sexual aggression, and mental health concerns. Potential implications for IPSV assessment and intervention at the level of policing and correctional programming are discussed, including the need for higher intensity treatments and the treatment of non-criminogenic needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".