MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156550925 · doi:10.1177/0886260505278024

Developmental Factors Related to Deviant Sexual Preferences in Child Molesters

2005· article· en· W2156550925 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Lussier, Éric Beauregard, Jean Proulx, Alexandre Nicole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSexualizationPsychosocialSuicide preventionClinical psychologyHuman sexualityPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between developmental factors and deviant sexual preferences in child molesters. In total, 146 adult males having committed a sexual offence against a child were included in the study. Three types of factors were investigated: negative experiences during childhood, behavior problems during adolescence, and sexual criminal activity in adulthood. Negative experiences and behavior problems were assessed through a semistructured interview. The sexual criminal activity was determined using police records. Sexual preferences towards children were assessed using phallometric assessment. Hierarchical regression analyses suggested the presence of two developmental pathways. The psychosocial deficits pathway is related to a sexual interest for nonviolent sexual stimuli involving children. The sexualization pathway is associated with a sexual interest for violent sexual stimuli involving children. These two pathways are discussed in light of previous empirical findings related to the development of deviant sexual preferences in child molesters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207