MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W368964872

Managing sex offender risk

2004· book· en· W368964872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hazel Kemshall, Gill McIvor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSex offenderPrisonRecidivismCriminologySexual violencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Sex Offenders: Policy and Legislative Developments. Hazel Kemshall, De Montfort University and Gill McIvor, University of Stirling. Part One: The Characteristics of Sexual Offenders. 2. Adult Male Sex Offenders. Dawn D. Fisher, Llanarth Court Psychiatric Hospital and Anthony R. Beech, University of Birmingham. 3. Female Sex Offenders. Hazel Kemshall. 4. Young Sex Offenders. Helen Masson, University of Huddersfield. Part Two: Assessment and Effective Interventions. 5. Risk Assessment of Sex Offenders. Don Grubin, St Nicholas Hospital, Newcastle. 6. Effective Intervention with Sexual Offenders. Bill Marshall, Gerris Serran and Heather Moulden, Rockwood Psychological Services, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 7. Treatment of Sex Offenders in the UK in Prison and Probation Settings. Anthony R. Beech and Dawn D. Fisher. 8. Managing Children and Young People Who are Sexually Aggressive. Andy Kendrick, University of Strathclyde. 9. Relapse Prevention: Theory and Practice. Tony Ward, Victoria University of Wellington, Mayumi Purvis, University of Melbourne and Grant Devilly, Swinburne University, Australia. Part Three: Community-based Risk Management Strategies. 10. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements: Key Issues. Mike Maguire, Cardiff University and Hazel Kemshall. 11. Sex Offender Registers and Monitoring. Terry Thomas, Leeds Metropolitan University. The Contributors. Subject Index. Author Index.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.344 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207