Risk to reoffend changes over time: Improving correctional programming through progress monitoring.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress monitoring is integral to evidence-based practice. Correctional settings, especially the supervision of individuals who commit sexual offenses, elicit public concern; negative outcomes can be catastrophic. Using a prospective longitudinal study of 2,939 men with a history of sexual offenses undergoing community supervision, we examined different models of progress monitoring and how they should inform the assessment of risk for sexual recidivism. We found that the most recent assessment scores of the ACUTE-2007 and STABLE-2007 sexual recidivism risk tools provided the best information about reoffending risk compared to using (a) the worst period of adjustments (i.e., highest risk score), (b) the best period of adjustments (i.e., lowest risk score), or (c) a rolling average of scores. We also found that the latest STABLE-2007 scores incrementally predicted sexual recidivism beyond baseline risk as assessed by demographic and criminal history variables (Static-99R). We conclude that the risk for sexual recidivism changes over time and that community corrections is advanced by repeated assessment of dynamic (changeable) risk factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".