MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114747513 · doi:10.1177/1079063212453941

Are Cognitive Distortions Associated With Denial and Minimization Among Sex Offenders?

2012· review· en· W2114747513 on OpenAlex
Kevin L. Nunes, Sandy Jung

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsMacEwan UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialCognitionPsychologySample (material)HarmSocial psychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there has been much speculation about the relationship between cognitive distortions and denial/minimization, little research on the subject is available. The authors conducted secondary analyses on existing data sets to further examine the degree of association between various measures of cognitive distortions and denial/minimization among child molesters (Sample 1, n = 73; Sample 2, n = 42; Sample 3, n = 38) and rapists (Sample 1, n = 41; Sample 3, n = 14). Meta-analysis of the findings from Samples 1, 2, and 3 indicated that greater endorsement of cognitive distortions about sex offending in general was significantly associated with greater denial/minimization of one's own guilt and deviance (r = .24), harm to one's own victims (r = .32), one's need for treatment (r = .21), and responsibility for one's sex offenses (r = .16). Although correlated, cognitive distortions and denial/minimization, at least as typically measured, are distinct constructs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.251 · 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