Violent behaviour in adolescents: assessment and formulation using a structured risk assessment tool
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Teenagers often present in crisis with risk issues, mainly risk to self but sometimes risk to others. Adolescent violence is commonplace and is not just the remit of adolescent forensic psychiatry. Clinicians may lack confidence assessing risk of violence and can neglect vital areas that are essential to reduce risk. Use of structured violence risk assessments enables the multi-agency professional network to formulate a young person's presentation and their violence in a holistic way and consequently develop targeted risk management plans addressing areas such as supervision, interventions and case management to reduce the risk of future violence. Of the several validated tools developed for young people, the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk – Youth (SAVRY™) is that most used by UK-based forensic adolescent clinicians. This article outlines the epidemiology, causes and purposes of violence among adolescents; discusses types of risk assessment tool; explores and deconstructs the SAVRY; and presents a fictitious risk formulation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it