Online Child Pornography Offenders and Risk Assessment: How Online Offenders Compare to Contact Offenders Using Common Risk Assessment Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare online child pornography offenders and contact offenders along the predictive items of the Static-2002 actuarial risk assessment tool, as well as, several other items and scales predictive of recidivism. In addition, the study wished to determine if the Static-2002 was a well-equipped to assess online offenders. 120 subjects were assessed in this study, 53 online child pornography offenders, 53 child molesters, and 7 offenders who committed both a contact and online offense. The research identified a number of similarities between the two groups of offenders, including a finding that the two groups did not significantly differ in age. The most pronounced differences were found on the several measures of criminality used in the study where contact offenders scored significantly higher. The Static-2002 was found to not be well suited for use with online offenders as the tool had difficulty assessing their sexual deviancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".