Attitudes and Decisions about Sexual Offenders: A Comparison of Laypersons and Professionals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The current study examines the inherent biases about sexual offending held by 123 laypersons and 120 professionals (i.e. probation officers and therapists). In order to determine the extent of these biases, a series of brief newspaper articles were constructed to depict cases of sexual offenders. Each article comprised several combinations of key variables, including offender type, level of admission, and the presence of alcohol. Participants read a series of three fabricated articles and then completed a questionnaire regarding attitudes about the various offenders. The results indicate important differences between the lay and professional samples. Laypersons deemed sex offenders more favourably in terms of character, accountability, and risk for sexual recidivism. However, both groups showed some similar perceptions about sexual offending. Specifically, both groups evaluated child molesters more negatively than exhibitionists and in some cases, rapists. These findings highlight the need for continuing education for professionals in order to attenuate the effects of prejudicial attitudes. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it