Comparing Indian and White men charged or convicted of sexual offences on the Static-99R and STABLE-2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns have been raised regarding the cross-cultural validity of risk assessment scales. This study compared the risk and need profiles of Indian (South Asian) and White men charged or convicted of sexual offences. It also examined the predictive accuracy of Static-99R and STABLE-2007, and the constructs of sexual criminality, general criminality, and youthful stranger aggression for violent and any recidivism. The study sample consisted of 2765 White and 158 Indian men supervised by British Columbia (B.C.) Corrections between 2005 and 2013. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to examine group differences between Indian and White offenders. Cox regression analysis was used to examine predictive accuracy. Compared to White men, Indian men demonstrated generally lower risk except that Indian men were more likely to have unrelated and stranger victims and demonstrate hostility towards women. Both Static-99R and STABLE-2007, and the main risk constructs significantly predicted violent and any criminal recidivism for Indian men. Static-99R and STABLE-2007 appear supported for use with men of Indian ancestry. Plausible explanations for the study findings as well as further implications for research and practice 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".