Penile-Response Profiles of Sexual Aggressors During Phallometric Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes sexual-preference profiles in a sample of 420 sexual aggressors who exhibited a valid profile during their initial phallometric assessment. The sexual stimuli used in the process were audiotapes describing sexual-offending scenarios. Two types of sexual stimuli sets were used: one developed for sexual aggressors against women and a second developed for sexual aggressors against children. Penile responses were recorded during stimulus presentation using a mercury-in-rubber strain gauge. Classification analyses (hierarchical and K-means clustering combination) were conducted separately for three groups of sexual aggressors: (a) sexual aggressors against children (n = 253), (b) sexual aggressors against women (n = 138), and (c) mixed sexual aggressors (n = 29). The sexual aggressors against children exhibited four penile-response profiles, the sexual aggressors against women two penile-response profiles, and the mixed sexual aggressors only one penile-response profile. In addition, analyses carried out on randomly split subsamples established that the generated profiles for sexual aggressors against children and sexual aggressors against women were stable.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".