Pyrophilia: A Need for Further Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyrophilia is an under researched form of paraphilia that involves heightened sexual arousal associated with fire or fire-setting (Newton, 2006; Hickey, 2015). The potential for harm caused by a person compelled to set fires to satisfy sexual cravings is theoretically greater than other forms of paraphilia. Therefore, more research on the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of pyrophilia may have significant societal benefits. The purpose of this article is to initiate a conversation on the topic of pyrophilia. This article presents previously discussed parameters of pyrophilia through a synthesis of peer-reviewed, clinical research publications. Moreover, case studies further explored and highlighted common elements and critiques of pyrophilia. Finally, the need for future research is discussed. Defining the term pyrophilia and correctly conceptualizing it as a syndrome, diagnosis, or subtype of another diagnosis will aid the development of best practices for assessment and 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.
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 | 0.067 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".