Long-term follow-up of exhibitionists: psychological, phallometric, and offense characteristics.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exhibitionism has historically been viewed as more of a nuisance than a serious criminal justice matter. Research has demonstrated that the number of exhibitionists who are detected re-offending is a significant under-representation of the number who actually re-offend. The objective of this study was to extend a previous study conducted on exhibitionists, while attempting to solve the limitations described in that study. Two hundred eight exhibitionists were assessed at a university teaching hospital between 1983 and 1996. Archival data were derived from police and medical files. Results indicated that, over a mean follow-up period of 13.24 years, 23.6, 31.3, and 38.9 percent of exhibitionists were charged with or convicted of sexual, violent, or criminal offenses, respectively. Undoubtedly, this is an under-representation of the true rate, as we have no way of knowing how many exhibitionists re-offended and did not get caught. Nevertheless, in the present investigation, sexual recidivists compared with non-recidivists were less educated, scored higher on the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST), the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R), and the Pedophile Index. Violent recidivists were also less educated and scored higher on the MAST, PCL-R, and the Pedophile Index, and had accumulated a greater number of prior violent or criminal charges and/or convictions. Criminal recidivists were less educated; scored higher on the MAST, Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI), PCL-R, and Pedophile Index; and had accumulated a greater number of prior sexual, violent, and criminal offenses. Finally, the hands-on sexual recidivists accumulated a greater number of prior violent and criminal charges and or convictions than did the hands-off sexual recidivists.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".