A systematic review of the state of the literature on sexually exploited boys internationally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review assessed the current state of the literature on sexually exploited boys internationally. We aimed to describe what is known about sexual exploitation of boys, identify gaps in the literature, provide implications for practice, and make recommendations for future research. Multiple database searches were conducted using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords to capture child and adolescent sexual exploitation. Our search identified 11,099 unique references and excluded studies that did not include male participants less than 18 years old or disaggregate results by relevant age groups and/or by sex. This review identified 42 studies from 23 countries, providing evidence that sexual exploitation of boys is an issue in both high- and low-income countries. Seventeen articles had sexual exploitation as their primary variable of interest, the majority of which sampled boys who accessed services (i.e., shelters, health care, social, and justice services). Boys' experiences of sexual exploitation varied in terms of venue, exploiters, and compensation. Compared to their non-sexually exploited peers, sexually exploited boys more commonly reported experiences of child abuse, substance use, conduct problems, and mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and self-harm. Despite increasing evidence that boys are sexually exploited around the world, the current literature provides limited data about the antecedents, sequelae, and the specific features of sexual exploitation experiences among boys. Further research is needed to inform, policy, social services and health care delivery specific to the needs of sexually exploited boys.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".