CRIMINAL PROPENSITY, DEVIANT SEXUAL INTERESTS AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF SEXUAL AGGRESSORS AGAINST WOMEN: A COMPARISON OF EXPLANATORY MODELS*
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
Three hypotheses have been used to describe the male propensity for sexual aggression towards women: a general propensity to offend, a specific propensity to sexually offend and a combination of both. In this paper, using structural equation modeling, we compared the relative utility of these three hypotheses in explaining criminal activity in adulthood of sexual aggressors of women. In total, 209 adult males who were convicted of at least one sexual offence were included in the study. Results indicate that a propensity model emphasizing the role of an early and persistent general propensity to act in an antisocial manner during childhood and adolescence is most adequate to explain sexual aggressors' criminal activity. After controlling for the role of this propensity, a specific propensity characterized by high sexualization and deviant sexual interests explained only a modest proportion of variance of the sexual criminal activity.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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