MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908151143 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6945364.v1

Parole Decision-Making and Empirical Practice: A Survey of Paroling Authorities

2023· other· en· W6908151143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European History and Architecture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpirical researchSituatedRelation (database)Empirical evidenceSurvey data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paroling authorities should have a clear understanding of the empirical support for factors considered in suitability determinations. We presented a survey to paroling authorities across the United States and Canada to examine their purview and information considered in decision-making. We situated the findings among existing empirical research suggesting best practices for consideration of specific factors in parole decision-making. Paroling authorities claim to give equal consideration to all information available, regardless of its empirical relation to suitability for release. Probed further, they display a good understanding of the empirical support for and the weight to be applied to each factor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicMedieval European History and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207