Circumferential Change Scores in Phallometric Assessment: Normative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phallometric testing is a procedure that has enjoyed considerable popularity as an objective component in the assessment of sexual offenders. The value of this procedure may be most notably compromised in the realm of interpretation, and problems in interpretation are particularly acute for those participants where full arousal is not obtained during testing. The calculation of Percent Full Erection (PFE) scores has of necessity involved a speculative component in such cases. Eliminating this speculation through empirical investigation was the purpose of the current research. Circumferential change scores (from flaccidity to full erection) were obtained for 724 respondents at nine North American correctional facilities, allowing for the calculation of descriptive statistics and a determination of the distribution characteristics of these scores. The results provide an empirical basis for calculating PFE scores and interpreting phallometric data in those cases where full arousal is not obtained, and specific confidence levels associated with interpretation are offered. It is suggested that only through a more rigorous application of the principles of science will the procedure of phallometric assessment fulfill its true potential.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".