MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979478631 · doi:10.1177/0306624x03253316

An Exploration of Childhood Victimization and Family-of-Origin Characteristics of Sexual Offenders Against Children

2003· article· en· W1979478631 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tania Stirpe, Lana Stermac

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySexual abuseClinical psychologyChild sexual abusePsychiatryChild abuseInjury preventionPoison controlDevelopmental psychologyMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison of the childhood victimization experiences and family-of-origin characteristics of 33 sexual offenders against children, 66 violent offenders, and 25 nonviolent offenders participating in assessment or treatment at a forensic division of a Canadian psychiatric hospital was undertaken using a semistructured interview designed specifically for this study. Overall, 31.5% of the sample reported contact sexual abuse (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal) by age 14. Sexual offenders against children reported significantly more sexual abuse than both violent and nonviolent offenders and were more likely to have been sexually propositioned and exposed to. Sexual offenders against children were also more likely to report physical discipline as the primary type of discipline in the home. Analyses of the variables concerning characteristics of parents, siblings, and significant others also indicated significant differences between groups. Implications of these findings on the intergenerational hypothesis are discussed as well as their relevance for treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.127 · 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

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207