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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam K. Matz, Adrian R. Martinez, Elizabeth Kujava

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrime & DelinquencySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207