Comparing indicators of sexual sadism as predictors of recidivism among adult male sexual offenders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this longitudinal study, the predictive validity of a psychiatric diagnosis of sexual sadism was compared with three behavioral indicators of sadism: index sexual offense violence, sexual intrusiveness, and phallometrically assessed sexual arousal to depictions of sexual or nonsexual violence. METHOD: Five hundred and eighty six adult male sexual offenders were assessed between 1982 and 1992, and these offenders were followed for up to 20-years postrelease via official criminal records. Assessment information included the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnosis, offense characteristics, phallometric assessment results, and an actuarial risk measure (the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide). RESULTS: Predictive validity was demonstrated in univariate analyses for the behavioral indicators of sexual sadism (area under the curve [AUCs] from .58 to .62) but not psychiatric diagnosis (AUC = .54). Cox regression analyses revealed that phallometrically assessed sexual arousal to violence was still significantly associated with violent (including sexual) recidivism after actuarially estimated risk to reoffend was controlled. A psychiatric diagnosis of sexual sadism, in contrast, was unrelated to recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the use of more behaviorally operationalized indicators of sexual sadism, especially phallometric assessment of sexual arousal, and suggest the DSM criteria for sexual sadism require further work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".