MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388140314 · doi:10.1177/00938548231208206

Clinical Override Use With the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory: Predictive Validity and Factors Associated With Case Management Use

2023· article· en· W4388140314 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Schmidt, Dilys Haner, Elaine Toombs

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive validityRecidivismPsychologyPredictive powerCase managementDiscretionRisk assessmentClinical psychologyPsychiatryComputer securityPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical discretion by youth probation officers to override the actuarial risk assessment classification on the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) is an important feature of case management practices. In a sample of 1,259 youth, the impact of clinical override on the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI and factors associated with override use were studied. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, the YLS/CMI demonstrated large effect size predictive validity values for general recidivism. Override occurred with 10.8% of youth and was more likely to be used with younger youth who had a sexual or violent index offense or those at the upper end of the moderate risk level. For youth where override was used, the YLS/CMI predictive validity became non-significant and fell to chance levels. The implications of these findings for field case management use, training, and probation officer decision-making practices are highlighted.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.421
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.018 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207