A Multimodal Examination of Sexual Interest in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research and theoretical models have consistently identified sexual interest in children as a key factor involved in child sexual offending. However, there is only moderate agreement in the diagnosis of pedophilia and different assessment methods identify different offenders as pedophiles. The current study examined the discriminative and convergent validity of three different measures of sexual interest in children. Participants included sex offenders and nonsex offenders recruited from federal prisons (i.e., offenders serving sentences of more than 2 years) in Ontario, Canada. Child molesters' responses (n = 35) were not significantly different from nonsex offenders (n = 21) on an implicit measure of sexual interest in children (Sexual Attraction to Children Implicit Association Test [SAC-IAT] d = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.99]), but differed on the self-report (Sexual Interest Profiling System; d = 0.83, 95% CI [0.27, 1.39]) and viewing time (d = 1.15, 95% CI [0.54, 1.75]) measures. Findings did not provide clear support for the superiority of a multimodal approach, possibly due to the relatively small sample. More often than not, convergence between the three measures was observed (n = 74). Findings from the present study are an important step toward understanding the relationship between different measures of sexual interest in children and establishing their validity.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".