Therapeutic responses of psychopathic sexual offenders: Treatment attrition, therapeutic change, and long-term recidivism.
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
The authors examined the therapeutic responses of psychopathic sex offenders (>or=25 Psychopathy Checklist--Revised; PCL-R) in terms of treatment dropout and therapeutic change, as well as sexual and violent recidivism over a 10-year follow-up among 156 federally incarcerated sex offenders treated in a high-intensity inpatient sex offender program. Psychopathy and sex offender risk/treatment change were assessed using the PCL-R and the Violence Risk Scale--Sexual Offender version (VRS-SO), respectively. Although psychopathic participants were more likely than their nonpsychopathic counterparts (<25 PCL-R) to drop out, almost 75% of the former completed treatment. Psychopathic offenders who failed to complete sex offender treatment were more likely to violently but not sexually recidivate than completers. Positive treatment changes were associated with reductions in sexual and violent recidivism after psychopathy and sexual recidivism risk were controlled. Overall, the results suggest that given appropriate treatment interventions, sex offenders with significant psychopathic traits can be retained in an institutional treatment program and those showing therapeutic improvement can reduce their risk for both sexual and violent recidivism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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