MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112257298 · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1847

Differentiation of Homicidal Child Molesters, Nonhomicidal Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders by Phallometry

2000· article· en· W2112257298 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Firestone, John Bradford, David M. Greenberg, Kevin L. Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPedophiliaPoison controlInjury preventionSuicide preventionChild abuseHomicideMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the ability of phallometry to discriminate among homicidal child molesters, nonhomicidal child molesters, and a comparison group of nonoffenders. METHOD: Twenty-seven child molesters who had committed or had attempted a sexually motivated homicide, 189 nonhomicidal child molesters, and 47 nonoffenders were compared on demographic variables and psychometrically determined responses to aural descriptions of sexual vignettes. Two phallometric indexes were used: the pedophile index and the pedophile assault index. The pedophile index was computed by dividing the subject's highest response to an aural description of sex with a "consenting" child by his highest response to description of sex with a consenting adult. The pedophile assault index was computed by dividing the subject's highest response to an aural description of assault involving a child victim by his highest response to description of sex with a "consenting" child. RESULTS: Homicidal child molesters, nonhomicidal child molesters, and nonoffenders were not significantly different in age or IQ. Homicidal and nonhomicidal child molesters had significantly higher pedophile index scores than nonoffenders. Significantly more homicidal child molesters (14 [52%] of 27) and nonhomicidal child molesters (82 [46%] of 180) than nonoffenders (13 [28%] of 47) had pedophile index scores equal to or greater than 1.0, but homicidal and nonhomicidal child molesters did not differ from each other. Significantly more homicidal child molesters (17 [63%] of 27) than either nonhomicidal child molesters (71 [40%] of 178) or nonoffenders (17 [36%] of 47) had pedophile assault index scores equal to or greater than 1.0, and nonhomicidal child molesters and nonoffenders were not significantly different from each other. Within-group analyses revealed that of the three groups, only the nonhomicidal child molesters exhibited a significant difference between their pedophile index scores and their pedophile assault index scores; their pedophile index scores were higher. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with past research, the authors found that the pedophile index is useful in differentiating homicidal and nonhomicidal child molesters from nonoffenders and that the pedophile assault index is able to differentiate homicidal child molesters from nonhomicidal child molesters and nonoffenders.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207