Dynamic Risk Groups Among Adult Male Sexual Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, the 16-item Stable-2000 was used to identify different dynamic risk groups among 419 adult male sexual offenders who were referred for assessments between 2000 and 2007. Using a two-stage cluster analysis, four dynamic risk groups were identified: (a) a low needs group who scored below the overall sample mean on all of the Stable-2000 items; (b) a typical group who had intermediate scores on many items; (c) a sexually deviant group who scored relatively high on deviant sexual interests, sexual preoccupation, emotional identification with children, and child molester attitudes; and (d) a pervasive high-needs group who scored relatively high on many Stable-2000 items, reflecting a variety of problems in both general and sexual self-regulation. These dynamic risk groups were not redundant with offender type based on victim age, relatedness, or gender, and did not differ in terms of age at time of assessment, marital status, number of sexual victims, or long-term risk, estimated using the Static-99. The implications for treating and supervising sexual offenders with different dynamic risk profiles 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".