Moral Reasoning, Interpersonal Skills, and Cognition of Rapists, Child Molesters, and Incest Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
54 inmates were subdivided into four groups and classified according to their index offense. The groups included Rapists (n = 14), Incest Offenders (n = 9), Child Molesters (n = 11), General Offenders (n = 20). Nonoffenders (n = 20) were included as a control group. Psychometric tests including the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, the Defining Issues Test, Survey of Interpersonal Values, Porteus Maze, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory were administered to all inmate and control groups. Analysis showed the rapists and child molesters scored higher on moral reasoning on the Defining Issues Test; also rapists' scores were more elevated on the Psychopathic Deviate and Paranoia scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory than those of other offender and control groups. These results imply that rapists and child molesters have the ability to understand moral issues; however, given their personality orientation, they ignore these interpersonal social values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".