MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078228894 · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.18.1.3

Intelligence, Memory, and Handedness in Pedophilia.

2004· article· en· W2078228894 on OpenAlexaff
James M. Cantor, Ray Blanchard, Bruce K. Christensen, Robert Dickey, Philip E. Klassen, A. Lee Beckstead, Thomas Blak, Michael E. Kuban

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedophiliaPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleNeuropsychologyDevelopmental psychologyRecallClinical psychologyCognitionPoison controlCognitive psychologyPsychiatryInjury preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sample of 473 male patients with pedophilia (assessed by the patients' sexual history and penile response in the laboratory to standardized, erotic stimuli) or other problematic sexual interests or behaviors received brief neuropsychological assessments. Neuropsychological measures included a short form of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Revised (D. Wechsler, 1981), the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test--Revised (R. H. B. Benedict, D. Schretlen. L. Groninger. & J. Brandt, 1998), the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test--Revised (R. H. B. Benedict, 1997), and the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (S. M. Williams, 1986). Pedophilia showed significant negative correlations with IQ and immediate and delayed recall memory. Pedophilia was also related to non-right-handedness even after covarying age and IQ. These results suggest that pedophilia is linked to early neurodevelopmental perturbations.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations191
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207