The Relation Between Peak Response Magnitudes and Agreement in Diagnoses Obtained From Two Different Phallometric Tests for Pedophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phallometric testing is widely considered the best psychophysiological procedure for assessing erotic preferences in men. Researchers have differed, however, on the necessity of setting some minimum criterion of penile response for ascertaining the interpretability of a phallometric test result. Proponents of a minimum criterion have generally based their view on the intuitive notion that "more is better" rather than any formal demonstration of this. The present study was conducted to investigate whether there is any empirical evidence for this intuitive notion, by examining the relation between magnitude of penile response and the agreement in diagnoses obtained in two test sessions using different laboratory stimuli. The results showed that examinees with inconsistent diagnoses responded less on both tests and that examinees with inconsistent diagnoses responded less on the second test after controlling for their response on the first test. Results also indicated that at response levels less than 1 cm(3), diagnostic consistency was no better than chance, supporting the establishment of a minimum response level criterion.
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 | 0.011 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".