The Strength of Sexual Arousal as a Function of the Age of the Sex Offender: Comparisons Among Pedophiles, Hebephiles, and Teleiophiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that sexual arousability in human males declines from its peak in early adolescence until old age. This study compared the rates of decline in three groups of males: those most attracted sexually to prepubescent children (pedophiles), those most attracted to pubescent children (hebephiles), and those most attracted to physically mature persons (teleiophiles). The participants were 2,028 patients referred to Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health from 1995 to 2004 for evaluation of criminal or otherwise disturbing sexual behavior, but not for erectile or ejaculatory problems. All underwent phallometric assessment for erotic age-preference. This is a psychophysiological technique in which an individual's penile blood volume is monitored while he is presented with a standardized set of laboratory stimuli depicting male and female children, pubescents, and adults. The experimental measure of sexual arousability was the average of the participant's three greatest penile responses to any stimulus category, expressed in cubic cm of blood volume increase. The results showed that sexual arousability was an inverse function of age, and that there were no differences between the pedophiles, hebephiles, and teleiophiles in the rate at which arousability declined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".