Are the Mentally Retarded and Learning Disordered Overrepresented Among Sex Offenders and Paraphilics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sample of 2,286 male sex offenders and paraphilics and 241 nonsex offenders was evaluated for the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disorders, using the full Wechsler IQ scales. The sex offenders were generally of average intelligence, and the mentally retarded were not overrepresented among them, but the learning disordered were. There were no differences among sex offenders and controls in overall IQ or in the percentage of mentally retarded or learning-disordered cases, suggesting that the learning difficulties are not peculiar to sex offenders. There was a bias in referral source, with more mentally retarded, borderline-retarded, and/or learning-disordered cases being referred by the Children's Aid Society, prisons, and the Crown, suggesting that referral source may play a significant role in evaluating intelligence and mental retardation among sex offenders; but the overrepresentation of learning disorders among criminals appears to be a significant phenomenon, regardless of referral source.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".