Predictors of Child Pornography Offenses and Child Sexual Abuse in a Community Sample of Pedophiles and Hebephiles
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about factors that distinguish men who act upon their self-identified sexual interest in prepubescent or pubescent children from those who do not. Even less is known about pedophiles or hebephiles who are not involved with the criminal justice system. In this study, a sample of 155 self-referred pedophiles and hebephiles was recruited from the community. All participants met DSM-IV-TR criteria for pedophilia (or paraphilia not otherwise specified for those who were sexually attracted to pubescent children). Two sets of group comparisons were conducted on sociodemographic variables and measures of dynamic risk factors. The first set was based on recent activity and compared men who had committed child pornography only or child sexual abuse offenses in the past six months with men who remained offense-free during the same period. The second set was based on lifetime offense history (excluding the most recent six months) and compared child pornography offenders with child sexual abuse offenders and men who had committed both kinds of offenses. Overall, there were more similarities than differences between groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it