MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139396496 · doi:10.1177/1524838012462244

Attitudes Supportive of Sexual Offending Predict Recidivism

2012· review· en· W2139396496 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsPublic Safety CanadaCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologySex offenderSex offenseHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionClinical psychologyRisk assessmentPsychiatrySexual abuseMedical emergencyMedicineComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attitudes supportive of sexual offending figure prominently in theories of sexual offending, as well as in contemporary assessment and treatment practices with sex offenders. Based on 46 samples (n = 13,782), this meta-analysis found that attitudes supportive of sexual offending had a small, yet reasonably consistent, relationship with sexual recidivism (Cohen's d = .22). To the extent that differences were observed, attitudes predicted recidivism better for child molesters than for rapists. There was no difference in the predictive accuracy of attitudes assessed at pretreatment or at posttreatment. The current study indicates that attitudes supportive of sexual offending is a psychologically meaningful risk factor for sex offenders. However, given that many different constructs have been designated as sex offender attitudes, further research and theory is needed to understand how these various constructs contribute to recidivism.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.276 · 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