The Self-Regulation Model of Sexual Offending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The self-regulation model (SRM) is a nine-phase, four-pathway offense process model designed specifically for sexual offenders that is now being applied to the treatment of this group in many settings and jurisdictions. In the present prospective study, we evaluated the validity and utility of the SRM in a sample of 275 adult male sexual offenders treated within the Correctional Service of Canada. Results indicated that participation in treatment resulted in moderate to large sized improvements from pretreatment to posttreatment on a dynamic risk assessment measure and several self-reported treatment targets. These changes were, in some cases, differentially associated with self-regulation pathways, suggesting that offense pathway is a clinically relevant variable when evaluating treatment change and in conceptualizing sexual offender treatment. In terms of outcome, individuals following the approach pathways, particularly the approach-automatic pathway, demonstrated higher failure rates than individuals following avoidant pathways. However, many of these differences were less pronounced when taking risk for recidivism into account. Implications of these findings for the effective assessment and rehabilitation of sexual offenders are discussed.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".