Cited by 171Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Law

An impact assessment of machine learning risk forecasts on parole board decisions and recidivism

Berk, Richard·2017·Journal of Experimental Criminology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11292-017-9286-2

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Assessment tools used to predict recidivism are now widespread in most jurisdictions.

    “Assessment tools used to predict recidivism are now widespread in most jurisdictions: bail and sentencing judges (Stevenson and Doleac, 2019; Albright, 2019), parole board members (Berk, 2017), and probation officers (Kopf, 2014) use the assessment scores to determine the level of risk.”

    From Prison Rehabilitation Programs: Efficiency and Targeting (2021) · cites this paper as Berk, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berk, R.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Berk, Richard
Venue
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Published
2017-04-08
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
193-216
ISSN
  • 1572-8315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3750
OpenAlex
W2604660495
Cited by
169
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
20.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Criminology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
parole decisions, recidivism, risk assessment, randomized experiments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review