Executive Functions and Social Cognition in Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although neuropsychological assessments provide valuable information for those working in forensic mental health, few neuropsychological studies concern persons who sexually offend, particularly juveniles who have sexually offended (JSO). It has been suggested that, contrary to current theories, executive function in JSO, as a group, is no more impaired than it is in juvenile delinquents in general. However, JSO with child victims seem to be more impulsive than JSO whose victims are peers or adults. To verify this potentially important (and unexpected) finding, a sample of adolescent males ( N = 134; 15.6 ± 1.5 years old) that included JSO, general delinquents, and underprivileged nondelinquents was assessed using a battery of behavioral and psychological tests that focus on impulsivity. No difference was found between groups regarding higher order executive functions as measured with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task but JSO with child victims were found to be the most impulsive subgroup as evidenced with the Iowa Gambling Task, the Stop-Signal Reaction Task, and the Impulsive scale of the Social Problem Solving Inventory. They also had the highest number of prescriptions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication. These results, which contradict hypotheses derived from assessment of adult sex offenders, illustrate an important difference between the cognitive profiles of adult and juvenile males who sexually offended. They also confirm that JSO whose victims are children appear to be more impulsive.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".