Online solicitation offenders are different from child pornography offenders and lower risk contact sexual offenders.
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 current study compared 38 lower risk (based on actuarial risk assessments) men convicted of contact sexual offenses against children, 38 child pornography offenders, and 70 solicitation offenders (also known as luring or traveler offenders). Solicitation and child pornography offenders were better educated than contact offenders but did not differ on other sociodemographic variables. In comparison to child pornography offenders, solicitation offenders had lower capacity for relationship stability and lower levels of sex drive/preoccupation and deviant sexual preference. Solicitation offenders were also more problematic than lower risk contact offenders on sex drive/preoccupation and capacity for relationship stability and had greater self-reported use of child pornography. Differences between groups on two actuarial risk measures, the Static-99 and the VASOR, were inconsistent. This study suggests that solicitation offenders differ in meaningful ways from lower risk contact offenders and child pornography offenders and, consequently, in risk, treatment, and supervision needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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