Exploring differences in youth and parent reports of antisociality among adolescent sexual and nonsexual offenders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the extent of, and explored several possible explanations for, the discrepancies found between adolescent and parent reports of conduct problems in adolescent sexual and nonsexual offenders. We found that adolescent sexual offenders scored lower on measures of conduct problems than did nonsexual offenders, whether on the basis of adolescent or parent report, though the difference was much larger for parent reports. Examining this discrepancy more closely, we found that parents of sexual offenders reported less antisocial behavior than did their sons, whereas parents of nonsexual offenders reported more antisocial behavior than did their sons. The same pattern of results was obtained for reports on impulsivity, but much less so with respect to antisocial personality traits such as narcissism and callousness. Measures of family functioning were generally not related to these parent-adolescent discrepancies in reports of conduct problems, but these discrepancies were positively correlated with parental reports of stress. The implications of these findings for the interpretation of research on adolescent sexual offenders and comparisons of sexual and nonsexual offenders are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".