The self-regulation model of sexual offending: Relationship to risk and need.
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
In the present study, we evaluated the validity and utility of the self-regulation model in a sample of 275 adult male sexual offenders treated within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). Individuals following different self-regulation pathways, as delineated in the SRM, were compared on offence characteristics, static and dynamic risk measures, and various treatment targets. Multivariate analyses revealed that, in general, offenders guided by approach-motivated goals exhibited more problematic offence characteristics as well as greater risk and treatment need than individuals guided by inhibitory goals. However, several other important distinctions were noted across offenders with different goals and strategies toward offending. These findings highlight the main importance of utilizing a comprehensive and multidimensional offence process model that emphasizes multiple routes to offending in sexual offender treatment. Implications of these findings for the effective assessment and rehabilitation of sexual offenders are 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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