Measurement of victim empathy in intrafamilial and extrafamilial child molesters using the child molester empathy measurement (CMEM)
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
Although it is widely believed that child molesters are deficient in empathy, there is little unequivocal evidence supporting this view. The present paper explores the issue of whether Australian adult child molesters are deficient in empathy relative to adult male members of the general community, using the Child Molester Empathy Measure (CMEM). This measure was designed specifically for the assessment of victim empathy in child molesters and has previously been used only with Canadian extrafamilial offenders. The present research extends the previous study by contrasting the empathy responses of 11 intrafamilial and 14 extrafamilial child molesters. The results challenge the notion that child molesters have either a generalised or victim-specific empathy deficit. Findings are discussed in terms of the use of the CMEM as an instrument that can reliably distinguish child molesters from nonoffenders, methodological issues, and directions for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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