MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071251606 · doi:10.1177/107906320201400105

Birth Order, Birth Interval, and Deviant Sexual Preferences Among Sex Offenders

2002· article· en· W2071251606 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Côté, Christopher M. Earls, Martin L. Lalumière

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBirth orderPsychologyArousalDevelopmental psychologySexual arousalDeviance (statistics)DemographySocial psychologyPopulationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated whether birth order and birth interval are associated with phallometric responding among 168 sex offenders. Based on the immunoreactivity hypothesis, we predicted that a larger number of older brothers and a shorter birth interval between the offenders and their next older brothers would be associated with more deviant responding. Results showed that a larger number of older brothers (but not older sisters, younger brothers, or younger sisters) was associated with more deviant responding on the Most Deviant Index, a general measure of sexual deviance. A larger number of older brothers was associated with arousal to nonsexual violence against women and children, but contrary to expectation, the same association was also found for the number of younger brothers. A short birth interval with the next older brother was associated with greater relative arousal to nonsexual violence, but the correlation with the Most Deviant Index did not reach statistical significance. Overall, results were consistent with the main predictions, but the effects of birth order and birth interval were mostly restricted to arousal to nonsexual violence. Birth order and birth interval were not associated with pedophilic interests or gender preferences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207