MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590324439 · doi:10.1177/0306624x17694374

Sexual Aggressors Against Women’s Sexual Lives: A Latent Class Analysis

2017· article· en· W2590324439 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stéphanie Langevin, Jean Proulx, Éric Lacourse

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent class modelSexual behaviorPsychologyClass (philosophy)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the day-to-day deviant and nondeviant sexuality of a sample of Canadian sexual aggressors against women ( N = 160). Using latent class analysis, three latent classes were identified: internalized deviant (ID), low sexual problem (LSP), and hypersexual deviant (HD). Following the latent class analysis, the developmental, physiological, cognitive, and criminological correlates of these lifestyles were analyzed. ID ( n = 31) aggressors were characterized by sexual dissatisfaction, sexual deviance, and a bland sexual life. LSP ( n = 116) aggressors were characterized by the absence of sexual deviance or hypersexuality. HD ( n = 13) aggressors were characterized by hypersexuality and sexual deviance. Our exploratory study suggests that the day-to-day nondeviant and deviant sexual life of sexual aggressors against women appear to affect their modus operandi. Furthermore, the adult sexual lifestyles of sexual aggressors against women appear to be extensions of their adolescent sexual lifestyles. The results of this study thus suggest avenues for research-notably, the specific influence of sexual behaviours and internalized psychosexual problems on modus operandi-that could improve the clinical management of sexual aggressors against women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207