Age as a Differential Characteristic of Rapists, Pedophiles, and Sexual Sadists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the role of age in three categories of 168 sex offenders, including 53 rapists, 62 pedophiles, and 53 sadists. On the basis of the match between requisites of completing each type of sexual offense, we hypothesized that rapists would be less represented in the older age group, whereas pedophilic and sexually sadistic offenders would show a more muted decline with age. This hypothesis was supported by the data, clearly a showing smaller number of rapists in the over 40 group relative to the number of pedophiles and sadists (p = 0.0009.) Further examination of the files eliminated the alternate explanation ascribing this pattern to lack of opportunity in older rapists because of incarceration. These results suggest that age over 40 may mitigate incidence of recidivism in rapists, but not in pedophiles or sexual sadists. Approximately one third of the sexual sadists had committed either first- or second-degree murder, whereas none of the nonsadistic rapists or pedophiles had these crimes on their records. The data further justify categorization of sex offenders into nonsadistic rapist, sadistic rapist, and pedophilic offenders in future research to enhance precision in delineating demographic characteristics and putative causal explanations for 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".