CONFOUNDING VARIABLES WITHIN “REFERRAL CONTROLS” FOR CHILDREN WITH HISTORIES OF SEXUAL STIMULATION BY ADULTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERRONEOUS ATTRIBUTIONS FROM “CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verbal and performance scores from a standardized intelligence battery for age-matched children from four groups ( n = 67) were compared to discern if the depressed scores for verbal intelligence displayed by children with histories of verified sexual stimulation by adults were epiphenomenal. The children had been referred to a psychiatric facility because of early sexual stimulation by adults, from a children's mental health service because of family problems, or from a school board for conduct disorders. The fourth group was hospital controls for the first group. The children with nonculturally approved sexual activity with adults and those from the mental health service displayed verbal intelligence scores that were about one SD below the scores for children referred by the school board and for the control group. These results suggest that psychological variables may not reflect a causal relationship and hence group differences should not be attributed exclusively to the diagnosis of sexual abuse.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".