Pedophilia: An Evaluation of Diagnostic and Risk Prediction Methods
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
One hundred thirty child sexual abusers were diagnosed using each of following four methods: (a) phallometric testing, (b) strict application of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision [DSM-IV-TR]) criteria, (c) Rapid Risk Assessment of Sex Offender Recidivism (RRASOR) scores, and (d) "expert" diagnoses rendered by a seasoned clinician. Comparative utility and intermethod consistency of these methods are reported, along with recidivism data indicating predictive validity for risk management. Results suggest that inconsistency exists in diagnosing pedophilia, leading to diminished accuracy in risk assessment. Although the RRASOR and DSM-IV-TR methods were significantly correlated with expert ratings, RRASOR and DSM-IV-TR were unrelated to each other. Deviant arousal was not associated with any of the other methods. Only the expert ratings and RRASOR scores were predictive of sexual recidivism. Logistic regression analyses showed that expert diagnosis did not add to prediction of sexual offence recidivism over and above RRASOR alone. Findings are discussed within a context of encouragement of clinical consistency and evidence-based practice regarding treatment and risk management of those who sexually abuse children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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