The Application of Machine Learning to a General Risk–Need Assessment Instrument in the Prediction of Criminal Recidivism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is one of the most frequently used tools to assess criminogenic risk–need in justice-involved individuals. Meta-analytic research demonstrates strong predictive accuracy for various recidivism outcomes. In this exploratory study, we applied machine learning (ML) algorithms (decision trees, random forests, and support vector machines) to a data set with nearly 100,000 LS/CMI administrations to provincial corrections clientele in Ontario, Canada, and approximately 3 years follow-up. The overall accuracies and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were comparable, although ML outperformed LS/CMI in terms of predictive accuracy for the middle scores where it is hardest to predict the recidivism outcome. Moreover, ML improved the AUCs for individual scores to near 0.60, from 0.50 for the LS/CMI, indicating that ML also improves the ability to rank individuals according to their probability of recidivating. Potential considerations, applications, and future directions are discussed.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".