Measuring Pedophilic Sexual Interest
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Pedophilic sexual interest is an important risk factor in sexual offender recidivism and remains a key component in the clinical assessment of child sexual offenders and people diagnosed with pedophilia. Despite concerns about the absence of universally accepted standardized clinical assessment methods, there are a number of established techniques aimed at assessing people with sexual interest in children. AIM: To provide a foundation from which to understand existing methods available for the assessment of people with pedophilic sexual interests, including strengths and limitations of each approach. METHODS: A group of clinical experts provide a clinically oriented, narrative review on assessment methods for pedophilic sexual interest, including the rationale behind each method and its implementation. Evidence on validity supporting the techniques, limitations, and ethical issues is also discussed. RESULTS: The assessment methods were grouped according to the following categories: self-report, genital psychophysiological assessment, indirect measurement, and behavioral measurement of pedophilic interest. Although most techniques performed well in discriminating child sexual offenders with pedophilic interest from distinct comparison groups, there are several limitations, including the current lack of standardization and the ethical challenges posed by this sensitive area. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: An understanding of the different measures available for the assessment of problematic sexual interests plays a vital role in forensic clinical determinations of risk of recidivism and in the identification of treatment targets for men who have committed sexual offenses. Several independent but complimentary methods exist to assess sexual interest. Ongoing work on the international standardization of assessment based on methodologically sound research aimed at determining best practices will address some of the shortcomings of these assessments while improving their reliability. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This article provides a general review on a number of methods aimed at assessing pedophilic interest. However, these methods mirror clinical practice largely used within North America and parts of continental Europe. As a result of cultural differences, opposing paradigms on assessment and treatment of pedophilia, and diverse legal regulation between jurisdictions and countries, these practices may not be applicable on an international scale where other special procedures may be required. CONCLUSION: A number of techniques have been used within clinical and research settings that vary from self-report to objective measures. Most methods have demonstrated efficacy. Continued work to combine evidence and experience from diverse populations and multiple countries will improve the quality of the methods available. Carvalho J, Bradford J, Murphy L, et al. Measuring Pedophilic Sexual Interest. J Sex Med 2020;17:378-392.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».