MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248208360 · doi:10.1177/0886260503018007006

The Self-appraisal Questionnaire: A Self-report Measure for Predicting Recidivism Versus Clinician-administered Measures: a 5-year Follow-up Study

2003· article· en· W4248208360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wagdy Loza, Katherine Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismSelf-report studyPsychologyClinical psychologyInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the effectiveness of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), a self-report measure for predicting release outcome, is examined as compared to clinician-administered and widely used risk prediction measures, over a 5-year period. The SAQ was administered along with four similar, but clinician-administered, measures to 91 federally sentenced Canadian male offenders prior to their release to the community. Follow-up data were collected for a 60-month period. Outcome criteria measures were violent and general recidivism. Results indicated that the SAQ is at least as effective as the four other measures in predicting postrelease outcome. The advantages of using the SAQ as a self-report measure as opposed to clinician-administered measures 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207