Examining sex offenders' intimacy deficits: their nature and their influence on sexually abusive behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite their purported role in the development and maintenance of sexually abusive behaviours, little is known empirically about sex offenders' (SOs) intimacy deficits. This study examined: (1) the presence and specific nature of intimacy deficits in SOs; and (2) the association between intimacy deficits and sexual recidivism risk. A sample of 195 SOs, 113 nonsexual offenders and 107 non-offenders were compared on psychological measures of intimacy with romantic partners. Specific intimacy deficits pertaining to attachment anxiety, sexual self-concept and sexual functioning were found in SOs. Further analyses showed that intimacy deficits vary among SOs, and that SOs displaying marked anxiety of abandonment and intimacy avoidance, and a lower capacity for general intimacy, presented a higher risk of sexual recidivism. The results are discussed in connection with the importance of better understanding SOs' adaptive and problematic intimacy dispositions, and the possible impact of these dispositions on sexual offending.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".