Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: Not applicable
- Genre
- Candidate signal: OtherConsensus signal: Other
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.205
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.163 | 0.110 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Violent extremism has galvanized public fear and attention. Driven by their concerns, the public has pushed for law enforcement and mental health systems to prevent attacks rather than just respond to them after they occur. The prevention process requires guidance for practitioners and policymakers on how best to identify people who may be at risk, to understand and assess the nature and function of the harm they may cause, and to manage them to mitigate or prevent harm. Violent Extremism provides such guidance. Over 10 chapters, prepared by leading experts, this handbook illuminates the nature of violent extremism and the evolution of prevention-driven practice. Authors draw on the literature and their experience to explain which factors might increase (risk factors) or decrease (protective factors) risk, how those factors might operate, and how practitioners can prepare risk formulations and scenario plans that inform risk management strategies to prevent violent extremist harm. Each chapter is crafted to support thoughtful, evidence-based practice that is transparent, accountable and ultimately defensible. Written for an international audience, the volume will be of interest to law enforcement and mental health professionals, criminal justice and security personnel, as well as criminologists, policymakers and researchers. Praise for Violent Extremism ‘In Violent Extremism, Logan, Borum and Gill have assembled the most celebrated scholars and practitioners in anticipating and mitigating violence. This extraordinary accomplishment could transform the future of risk assessment.’ John Monahan, University of Virginia ‘Scholarly, scientific and so very practical, this is the book we have been waiting for. It should be read, and re-read, by every practitioner and researcher working on violent extremism.’ John Horgan, Georgia State University ‘Since the early 2000s, the field of assessing violent extremism risk has developed apace. This landmark text authoritatively takes stock of past and current theory, research and practice, and provides a coherent vision for the future.’ Christopher Dean, Cardiff Metropolitan University
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.
The record
- Venue
- Directory of Open access Books (OAPEN Foundation)
- Topic
- Field
- Canadian institutions
- not available
- Funders
- Université du Québec à MontréalMassachusetts General HospitalBureau of Justice AssistanceOffice of the Director of National IntelligenceU.S. Department of Defense
- Keywords
- Violent extremismHarmCriminal justiceLaw enforcementPraiseMental healthPunitive damagesEconomic JusticeEnforcement
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes