Psychopathy, Deviant Sexual Arousal, and Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders
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
A sample of 68 incarcerated sexual offenders for whom assessments of psychopathy and sexual deviance were available were followed up postrelease for 7 years to determine (a) rates of recidivism, (b) discriminant and predictive ability of psychopathy and sexual deviance, and (c) degree of incremental predictive utility of grouping offenders based on extreme combinations of psychopathy and sexual deviance. The results confirm previous research, which suggests that general recidivism and sex offender typologies are differentiated using information on psychopathy. Rapists and child molesters were differentiated based on measures of deviant sexual arousal. Although some of the results are speculative with respect to the groups based on extreme cutoffs, the trends support this proposal. Those who displayed more psychopathic characteristics and deviant sexual arousal recidivated sooner and at significantly higher rates. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for the provisions of assessment and intervention strategies and for providing recommendations regarding prescriptive treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it