MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791942284 · doi:10.1177/1079063218759325

The Etiology of Risk in Sexual Offenders: A Preliminary Model

2018· article· en· W2791942284 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Brouillette‐Alarie, Jean Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyExternalizationPromiscuityEtiologySex offenseDevelopmental psychologyIdentification (biology)Clinical psychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSexual abuseSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual offender risk assessment practice is considered by many to be atheoretical. The identification of the most predictive risk factors and tools has typically overshadowed questions about etiology. To gain insight into the origins of criminal behavior among sexual offenders, we developed and validated an etiological model of risk based on the theoretical framework of Beech and Ward. Our model focused on persistence rather than onset, and encompassed both the sexual and nonsexual criminal activity of these offenders. It comprised two pathways. The first was characterized by sexual victimization, social isolation, and early deviant sexual fantasies. It led to a prolific involvement in sexual criminality (especially toward children) and predicted sexual recidivism. The second pathway was characterized by externalization problems, sexual promiscuity, and physical/psychological victimization, and was associated with nonsexual offending and serious sexual offenses directed (mostly) toward women. It predicted all types of recidivism.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207