Detecting Anomalous Sexual Interests in Juvenile Sex Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".