MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059574369 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.46.1.27

Treatment at La Macaza Clinic: A Qualitative Study of the Sexual Offenders' Perspective

2004· article· en· W2059574369 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martin Drapeau, Christine Körner, Louis Brunet, Luc Granger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychodynamicsPsychologyExploratory researchPerspective (graphical)RecidivismSex therapyDirectiveSex offenderPedophiliaQualitative researchPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatryHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicineSociologyMedical emergencySexual dysfunction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study aimed at better understanding why pedophile sex offenders enter and remain in treatment and how they consider it to be helpful. Comparative analysis was applied to non-directive semi-structured interviews with 24 pedophile sex offenders from La Macaza Clinic at the La Macaza federal penitentiary in Quebec. Three major themes were explored: (1) the offenders' impressions about the voluntary basis of the treatment; (2) the nature of the motivation for treatment of the participants; and (3) the different ways in which therapy was or was not helpful. The results are discussed in reference to psychodynamic literature on therapy processes and sexual deviance pathology.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénaleSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207