MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280573649 · doi:10.5539/res.v14n2p76

16-Questions to Find Domestic-Terrorists, Mass-Murderers, Spree-Shooters, With a Study-1: 370-Workplace-Shooters vs. 370-Controls, and a Study-2: 9-Adult-Shooters With 12-Homicidal and 24-Controls Rated on the Ask Standard Predictor of Violence Potential-Adult Version and the MMPI-2: Implications Are to Use Computer-Tests and Machine-Learning-Equations to Lower Insurance Premiums and Prevent Church Bankruptcy

2022· article· en· W4280573649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert John Zagar, James Garbarino, Brad Randmark, Ishup Singh, Joseph K. Kovach, Emma Cenzon, Michael J. Benko, Steve Tippins, Kenneth G. Busch, Rohit Baghel

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Air ForceNorthwestern University
KeywordsMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychologyMisconductCriminologyPsychiatryPersonalitySocial psychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

630 Terrorist-Mass-Murdering-Spree-Shooters are compared with 623-controls and separated by 16-Questions with a=.846, p<.01, AUC= .704, p<.01 that are: (1) homicidal? (2) suicidal? (3) stressful-life-event? (4) handgun-many-weapons-access? (5) violence-planning-preparing? (6) revenge? (7) eliciting-others-concern? (8) intent-leakage? (9) criminal-misconduct? (10) grievance? (11) random-violent-behavior? (12) threatening-victims? (13) dead-male-victim? (14) targeting-person-school-work? (15) student-professional-work-relationship? and (16) student? Before killing, terrorists come twice to courts-police, doctors-hospitals, schools-universities and human resources and are not diagnosed as dangerous due to error-prone current ways. In Study-1: 370-workplace-shooters (1968-2021) are contrasted with 370-controls using logistic-regression (F= 134.64, p<.01, df = 13/726, R=.84, p<.01, R2=. 71, p<.01 resulting in 14-Questions: (1) homicidal? (2) intent-leakage? (3) stressful-life-event? (4) revenge? (5) many-weapons? (6) elicited-others-concern? (7) criminal-misconduct? (8) threatened-victims? (9) dead-male-victim? (10) targeted-workplace? (11) professional-work-relationship? (12) suicidal? (13) random–violence? In Study-2: 9-spree-shooters are distinguished from 12-homicidal and 24-control adults showing a “7-point-violence-profile on two scales: (1)[Ask Standard Predictor of Violence Potential-Adult Version] violence (F=17.48, p<.01); and (2) the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition [MMPI-2] F (infrequency) (F=92.15, p<.01); L (lie) (F=13.13, p<.01), (3) D (depression) (F=37.76, p<.01); (4) Pd (psychopathic-deviance) (F=44.66, p<.01); (5)Pa (paranoia) (F=50.58, p<.01); (6) Sc (schizophrenia) (F=53.85, p<.01), (7) MacAndrews alcohol (F=42.01, p<.01); AAS (addiction admission) (F=57.34, p<.01). Looking from 1968-2021 at the insurance industry expense, there is the workplace-shooter loss = [$1,418,945,589.60 (370-shooters @ $3,834,988.08) + $4,053,582,400.56(1,057-deaths @) $3,834,988.08 + $37,556,154.24 (1,112-injured@ $33,773.52)] = $5,510,084,144.40 + [higher-insurance-premiums [$5,510,084,144.40 x 1.3 =] $7,163,109,387.72 = $12,673,193,582.12. No-computer-tests-equations, 2022-2105 [2 x $12,673,193,582.12 = $25,346,387,064.24.The 2nd violence example is the U.S-Catholic-Church-pedophilia-loss, (1936-2107) [payouts, $17,435,353,000] + [lost-donations =1.3 x payouts =] 22,665,958,900= $40,101,511,900 (1986-2107), with the 5,679 victims increasing (1936-2107) to 39,753-victims.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.005

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207