MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959378399 · doi:10.1002/sm2.96

Defining “Normophilic” and “Paraphilic” Sexual Fantasies in a Population-Based Sample: On the Importance of Considering Subgroups

2015· article· en· W1959378399 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian C. Joyal

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsPopulationParaphiliaPsychologyRealmFantasyClinical psychologyDemographyDevelopmental psychologySexual behaviorHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), a sexual fantasy (SF) is paraphilic if it concerns activities outside the realm of "genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners" (normophilic). Intensity of the paraphilic SF is also "greater than or equal to normophilic interests." Surprisingly, however, very few data are available to corroborate that definition of a paraphilic SF. Although the relatively high prevalence of paraphilic SF in the general population is well known, the magnitude of difference between intensity of "normophilic" and "paraphilic" SF remains to be assessed. AIM: The main goal of this study was to analyze the SF of adults recruited in the general population to obtain person profiles based on the nature and intensity of their SF. METHODS: Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) were used with data collected from 1,501 adults recruited in the general population to generate subgroups of participants based on the nature and intensity of their SF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures used was a revised version of the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire. RESULTS: When all participants are considered as a unique group, the mean intensity of the most intense "normophilic" SF (oral sex) is significantly higher than the mean intensity of the most intense "paraphilic" SF (being sexually dominated for women and watching two women having sex for men), as expected from the DSM-5. When clusters of participants are considered separately, however, conclusions are nuanced. Four significant clusters of participants (two predominantly female and two predominantly male) reported at least one paraphilic SF with intensity as high as that of their most intense "normophilic" SF. In fact, 57% of this sample met the criteria of paraphilia. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the current criteria for paraphilia are too inclusive. Suggestions are given to improve the definition of pathological sexual interests, and the crucial difference between SF and sexual interest is underlined. Joyal CC. Defining "normophilic" and "paraphilic" sexual fantasies in a population-based sample: On the importance of considering subgroups. Sex Med 2015;3:321-330.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual MedicineSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207