MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011097829 · doi:10.1002/bsl.2453

Use of penile plethysmography in the court: A review of practices in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States

2020· review· en· W3011097829 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Murphy, Emily D. Gottfried, Keana DiMario, Derek Perkins, J. Paul Fedoroff

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual arousalRecidivismParaphiliaArousalMedicineInclusion (mineral)PsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologySocial psychologySexual behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penile plethysmography (PPG) is an objective measure of male sexual arousal in response to the presentation of a series of erotic and neutral stimuli. This measure is now widely recognized as the most reliable means of objectively measuring male sexual arousal to specific stimuli. Many clinicians and researchers consider PPG to be a vital contribution to the assessment and treatment of adult men with paraphilic interests and men who have committed sex crimes. PPG contributes to the clinical assessment of paraphilic interests, appraisal of risk of recidivism, and provides an objective measurement of changes in sexual arousal in response to treatment. There is strong support for the utility of PPG within clinical and legal contexts. This article addresses ways in which PPG has been utilized in the courts as part of expert clinical opinion. History of its use, details regarding admissibility in court, and case law are explored within the legal systems of Canada, the UK and the USA. Support for the inclusion of PPG as expert evidence is provided and judicial misunderstandings on the rationale for PPG use and its clinical utility in forensic assessments are discussed.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207