MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029886418 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2012.672945

The Errors of Karen Franklin's <i>Pretextuality</i>

2012· article· en· W2029886418 on OpenAlexaff
James M. Cantor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)PreferencePsychologyEpistemologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyMedicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her recent article, Hebephilia: Quintessence of Diagnostic Pretextuality (published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2010), Karen Franklin expands on her previous argument that psychologists and psychiatrists should not diagnose as abnormal hebephilia, the sexual preference for early pubescent children. She supports her argument with a series of claims about the contents of the empirical literature and the scientists who produced it. The present document provides fact-checking of those claims, revealing that Franklin's conclusions are based largely on demonstrable falsehoods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.160
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.160
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.043
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0090.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207