Sexual Preferences and Recidivism of Sex Offenders With Mental Retardation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By some accounts, sex offenders with mental retardation commit sex offenses against children because the offenders lack sexual knowledge or are socially and intellectually immature rather than because of sexually deviant interests. By other accounts, these offenders exhibit pedophilic sexual interests. In this study, phallometrically determined sexual interests, recidivism, and choices of victims of 69 sex offenders with mental retardation are examined and compared with those of 69 sex offenders of average or higher IQ. Consistent with hypotheses, sex offenders with mental retardation exhibit more deviant preferences for prepubertal children, male children, and young children than do the comparison offenders. They are also more likely to have had a prepubertal victim, a prepubertal male victim, and a very young victim. They are no more likely than the comparison offenders to exhibit preferences for extremely coercive sex with children or to exhibit deviant adult activity preferences, nor are they more likely to recidivate violently. Results support the idea that pedophilia is a disorder of neurodevelopment and point to the importance of risk assessments that include assessing sexual preferences among sex offenders with mental retardation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".