MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detecting Anomalous Sexual Interests in Juvenile Sex Offenders

2003· article· en· W2021420603 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Seto, William D. Murphy, J G Page, Liam Ennis

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedophiliaPsychologySexual arousalInjury preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsDevelopmental psychologyJuvenile delinquencyClinical psychologySexual behaviorMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phallometric studies suggest that some adolescent sex offenders exhibit anomalous sexual interests. However, there have been ethical and practical objections to the phallometric testing of adolescents. Alternative measures may be needed if we are to understand the role of anomalous sexual interests in adolescent sexual offending. The Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI) was designed as a brief measure of pedophilic interests based on sexual offense history variables: any male victims, more than one victim, any victims under age 12, and any unrelated victims. Score on the SSPI is significantly and positively correlated with phallometrically measured pedophilic interests among adult offenders against children. In this study, the SSPI was scored in three samples of adolescent sex offenders who underwent phallometric testing for pedophilic interests. Scores on the SSPI were positively correlated with a phallometric index of relative sexual arousal to children in all three samples. This relationship was strongest using visual stimuli. The positive relationship between SSPI scores and pedophilic responding held up despite the use of different penile measures, stimulus sets, procedures, and scoring methods. The usefulness of the SSPI as a proxy measure among adolescents is discussed.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207