MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108080993 · doi:10.1177/0093854806291703

Indirect Assessment of Cognitions of Child Sexual Abusers With the Implicit Association Test

2007· article· en· W2108080993 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin L. Nunes, Philip Firestone, Mark W. Baldwin

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyImplicit-association testSex offenseHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlClinical psychologyChild sexual abuseInjury preventionAssociation (psychology)Test (biology)CognitionSexual abuseDevelopmental psychologySuicide preventionPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is adapted to measure cognitions regarding self and children in 27 male child molesters and 29 male nonsexual offenders. As expected, child molesters view children as more sexually attractive than do nonsexual offenders. Among the child molesters, viewing children as more sexually attractive is associated with greater risk of sexual recidivism as measured by the Static-99. Viewing children as more powerful is associated with greater risk of sexual recidivism as measured by the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism. Although not all hypotheses are supported, this study demonstrates that the IAT has much promise as a tool with which to study cognitions associated with sexual abuse of children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207