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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".