Interventions for Pedohebephilic Arousal in Men Convicted for Sexual Offenses Against Children: A Meta-Analytic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the centrality of pedohebephilic interest in understanding sexual offending against children, several interventions have been developed to help men manage or inhibit their sexual arousal to children to reduce the intensity of their experience of such arousal. A meta-analytic review was conducted to examine the effectiveness of interventions for managing pedohebephilic arousal, as measured by phallometric testing. A systematic literature review identified 23 within-group design studies and 18 single-case design studies ( N = 1,071) for analysis. Behavioral and pharmacological interventions showed moderate to large effects for reducing pedohebephilic arousal. Moderator analyses suggest that men with high pretreatment pedohebephilic arousal showed the greatest reductions in arousal. Small effects were found for comprehensive treatment programs; none of the interventions had the effect of increasing sexual arousal to adults. These results support the effectiveness of behavioral and pharmacological interventions for managing pedohebephilic arousal in men convicted of sexual offenses against children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".