Phallometric Comparison of Pedophilic Interest in Nonadmitting Sexual Offenders Against Stepdaughters, Biological Daughters, Other Biologically Related Girls, and Unrelated Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the mean levels of sexual response to children produced by four groups of men with sexual offences against prepubescent girls and two comparison groups with other offences or no offences. All groups (N = 291) consisted of patients referred for clinical assessment of their sexual behavior or interests. Group assignment was determined by the victim's age and her relation to the patient: biological daughter; stepdaughter; other biologically related girl (e.g., sister, niece, granddaughter); unrelated girl; adult woman; and no known victim. The men with sexual offences had precisely one known victim each. The patients with offences may or may not have denied the act of which they were accused, but all patients denied an erotic preference for children. Sexual response to children was assessed by means of phallometric testing, a psychophysiological technique in which the individual's penile blood volume is monitored while he is presented with a standardized set of laboratory stimuli depicting male and female children and adults. The results indicated that the mean level of pedophilic response in men with offences against daughters or stepdaughters is intermediate between that in men with offences against otherwise-related or unrelated girls and that in men with no offences against girls at all.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".