MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127386670 · doi:10.1177/107906320301500201

A Brief History of Behavioral and Cognitive Behavioral Approaches to Sexual Offenders: Part 1. Early Developments

2003· article· en· W2127386670 on OpenAlexaff
D. Richard Laws, William L. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyWatsonPreferenceCognitionSexual behaviorHuman sexualityVariety (cybernetics)Developmental psychologyNeuroscienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first of two papers which briefly outline the development of behavioral and cognitive behavioral treatment of sexual offenders from the mid-1800s to 1969. We first consider the historic role of Sigmund Freud and note that a broad scientific interest in deviant sexual behaviour was well established by 1900. In the early to mid-20th century, two psychologies were prominent in the development of behaviorial approaches, those of John B. Watson and Alfred Kinsey. Behavior therapy for a variety of problems emerged in the 1950s and soon found application to deviant sexuality. The development of penile plethysmography helped to focus interest on deviant sexual preference and behavior. While nonbehavioral approaches to sexual offenders paralleled these developments, a combination of behavioral and cognitive behavioral treatments began to emerge in the late 1960s which ultimately developed into the approaches more commonly seen today.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations111
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207