MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768325803 · doi:10.1037/abn0000291

Taxometric analyses of pedophilia utilizing self-report, behavioral, and sexual arousal indicators.

2017· article· en· W2768325803 on OpenAlexaff
Skye Stephens, Elisabeth J. Leroux, Tracey A. Skilling, James M. Cantor, Michael C. Seto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedophiliaPsychologyPsycINFOSexual arousalParaphiliaArousalPornographyClinical psychologyOrgasmSexual behaviorPoison controlDevelopmental psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsSocial psychologyPsychiatryMEDLINESexual dysfunctionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pedophilia refers to the recurrent, intense sexual interest in prepubescent children who, by definition, have not developed any secondary sex characteristics. Researchers have begun to investigate whether persons with pedophilia are qualitatively different from those without pedophilia (pedophilia is a taxon) or if people vary in their level of sexual interest toward children (pedophilia is dimensional). Two relatively small studies have previously attempted to address this question, but produced conflicting results. The present study built on these studies with a substantially larger sample of 2,227 men who committed sexual offenses and were assessed at a sexual behavior clinic. The present study also examined a broader range of measures more closely approximating the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder, including phallometric assessment of sexual arousal patterns. The results of 3 taxometric analyses did not find support for the assertion that pedophilia is a taxon. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.343 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Abnormal PsychologySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207