Risk scores and reliability of the SARA, SARA-V3, B-SAFER, and ODARA among Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) cases referred for threat assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Threat assessment services help police by identifying risk and recommending ways to mitigate risk for cases perceived to have a high potential for intimate partner violence (IPV). However, research has yet to show that cases referred for threat assessment score higher on IPV risk tools than routine policing samples, which would show whether referrals are appropriate. Furthermore, it is unknown whether these tools can be scored reliably from documents gathered by threat assessors without contacting perpetrators or victims. We scored the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) and its revision (SARA-V3), Brief Spousal Assault Risk Evaluation Form (B-SAFER), and Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) from threat assessment files of 238 men referred for IPV offenses. Cases scored higher than previously reported routine policing samples. Inter-rater reliability coefficients for total scores and most subscales were ≥.70. Findings support appropriateness of referrals and capacity to reliably score IPV risk tools.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".