Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some uncertainty exists in the literature regarding the status of phallometric testing with rapists. Although Quinsey and colleagues (1981) argue that rapists can be distinguished from nonsexual offenders with appropriate phallometric tests, Marshall (in press) argues that the validity of such testing is not proved, and that findings supportive of the testing are a artifact of population differences (i.e., psychiatric vs. correctional) and not reflective of rapists overall. The current study attempts to clarify this issue by testing rapists, child molesters, and mixed offenders (those with both adult and child victims) in a prison setting with both the Barbaree and Quinsey stimulus sets. It was hypothesized that rapists would be found to have more deviant rape indices when tested with the Quinsey stimulus set than with the Barbaree set. However, neither stimulus set distinguished the three groups in terms of the rape indices, whereas the rape index calculated from the Quinsey stimulus set was slightly more deviant than the one calculated from the Barbaree set. However, only 25% of rapists were classified as deviant using a rape index cutoff of 1.0. This finding is discussed in terms of the sexual preference hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".