MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225592959 · doi:10.1177/00938548221084301

A Latent Class Analysis of the Antisocial Attitudes Domain of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory

2022· article· en· W4225592959 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matt Costaris, Michele Peterson‐Badali, Tracey A. Skilling

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent class modelPsychologyRecidivismConceptualizationService (business)Class (philosophy)Social psychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychologyComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antisocial attitudes are a strong predictor of reoffending and frequently incorporated into risk assessment tools, including the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). However, YLS/CMI Attitudes/Orientation domain items appear to cover different issues—antisocial attitudes and willingness to engage in treatment—which have different implications for case management and service provision. Latent Class Analysis of data from 798 Canadian youth probationers identified four classes based on item endorsement on the Attitudes/Orientation domain: High Overall Attitude Needs (19%), Predominantly Antisocial Attitude Items (20%), Predominantly Lack of Service Engagement (9%), and Low Overall Attitude Needs (52%). Class differences were found on index offense, criminogenic needs, and recidivism, with the High Overall Attitude Needs class presenting as most “negative,” followed by Predominantly Antisocial Attitude Items, Predominantly Lack of Service Engagement, and Low Overall. Understanding attitudes based on this class conceptualization can assist probation officers in targeting services more effectively to justice-involved 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207