MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239052235 · doi:10.1177/107906320601800207

The Factor Structure of Static Actuarial Items: Its Relation to Prediction

2006· article· en· W4239052235 on OpenAlexaff
Howard E. Barbaree, Calvin M. Langton, Edward J. Peacock

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersSolar Energy Technologies Office
KeywordsRecidivismPersistence (discontinuity)Sex offenderPsychologySexual abuseRisk assessmentClinical psychologySex offenseDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlPsychiatryHuman factors and ergonomicsDemographyMedicineMedical emergencyComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Principal components analysis was conducted on items contained in actuarial instruments used with adult sex offenders, including: the Rapid Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidivism (RASORR), the Static-99, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), and the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R). In a data set that included child molesters and rapists (N = 311), six interpretable components were identified: Antisocial Behavior, Child Sexual Abuse, Persistence, Detached Predatory Behavior, Young and Single, and Male Victim(s). The RRASOR was highly correlated with Persistence, and the VRAG and SORAG were highly correlated with Antisocial Behavior. Antisocial Behavior was a significant predictor of violent recidivism, while Persistence and Child Sexual Abuse were significant predictors of sexual recidivism.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207