Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of the self-help program "Le groupe d'entraide Amorce" for pedophilic men showed they were progressing regarding certain pedophilic characteristics, particularly with respect to a better integration of their adult sexuality. However, nobody in this program claimed to be "treating" pedophilia directly. In fact, all of them relied upon the sharing and supporting dynamics of a self-help group to face other related problems and to reach the preliminary but necessary steps for deeper changes. The beneficial effect of the program was felt regarding mainly stopping withdrawal, changing attitudes, increasing empathy, motivating for change, improving communication skills, discharging emotions, clarifying immediate problems, repositionning as adults, supporting when depressed or decreasing anxiety. The triangulation of the points of view of facilitators, external parties, and participants did confirm these results both regarding pedophilia and other problems. Beyond these effects, the evaluation showed that the main strengths of the program were: the support and sharing of experiences between participants ; the motivation and availability of those involved ; the openness to external critics, novelty, uniqueness, pro-gressiveness, communal, non-medical, and preventive approach of pedophilia ; and the respect for and "responsibilisation" of the participants. Some aspects of the program also needed to be improved and specific recommendations were provided to the administrators.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".