MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049478355 · doi:10.1177/0011128720950023

Assessing Risk in North Dakota Juvenile Probation: A Preliminary Examination of the Predictive Validity of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument

2020· article· en· W3049478355 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrime & Delinquency · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Dakota
KeywordsPredictive validityJuvenileJuvenile courtJuvenile delinquencyPsychologyExploratory researchSample (material)DemographyClinical psychologyCriminologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory research examines the predictive accuracy of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument adopted by the North Dakota Juvenile Court through a retrospective review of assessment and court records. While studies of YASI from New York, Virginia, and Canada provide some confidence in the instrument’s predictive validity, questions remain concerning its accuracy among female and other specialized populations. This study finds a moderate effect for the instrument’s predictive accuracy in relation to general reoffending from a random sample of juvenile probationers (AUC = 0.66, p = .002, 95% CI [0.56, 0.75], N = 139), but results were notably weaker for females compared to males. Further research is needed on its accuracy among African American and Native American youth.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.242 · 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