MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011243472 · doi:10.1080/13552600.2012.741267

Child pornography possessors: Comparisons and contrasts with contact- and non-contact sex offenders

2012· article· en· W2011243472 on OpenAlex
Sandy Jung, Liam Ennis, Shayla Stein, Alberto Choy, Tarah Hook

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sexual Aggression · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonMacEwan University
FundersMacEwan University
KeywordsPornographyChild pornographyPsychologyRecidivismPedophiliaDevelopmental psychologySex offenseHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlClinical psychologyThe InternetSexual abuseMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of the internet has facilitated a dramatic increase in the number of individuals accessing and possessing child pornography and a corresponding increase in referrals for assessment and treatment. Questions remain regarding whether child pornography possessors are more similar to or different from other types of sex offenders, and whether or not assessment and treatment protocols for contact and non-contact sex offenders are applied appropriately to child pornography offenders. The present study compared 50 child pornography offenders, 45 non-contact sex offenders and 101 contact child molesters. The results indicated that the three groups were more similar than different; however, child pornography offenders were distinguished by greater academic and vocational achievement, fewer childhood behaviour problems and by select relational variables. Recidivism rates were low for all groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.293 · 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