A comparison of incest offenders based on victim age.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to compare incest offenders (IOs) whose victims include infants or toddlers to IOs with adolescent victims on several variables commonly examined in the sexual offender literature. Participants were 48 men whose youngest victim was less than 6 years of age (younger-victim incest offenders; YVs); and 71 men whose youngest victim was 12 to 16 years of age (older-victim incest offenders (OVs). In general, YVs showed more emotional disturbance and pathology than OVs. Compared with OVs, YVs had a greater history of substance abuse and more current problems with alcohol. In addition, YVs reported significantly poorer sexual functioning and were significantly more psychiatrically disturbed. YVs were also more likely to have a male victim, to have victimized a nephew/niece or grandson/granddaughter, and to have denied their offense(s). It was evident that both the YVs and OVs demonstrated clinically significant difficulty with normal sexual functioning and exhibited deviant sexual arousal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".