Discipline as Prevention: Psychoeducational Strategies in Internet Sexual Offending Group Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes a UK-based psychoeducational intervention for users of online child sexual exploitation material (CSEM). It is founded on 17 months of anthropological research in group programs with 81 participants and 15 staff. The article argues that group exercises help participants reframe knowledge about their offending, and ultimately reinforce the theoretical concept of discipline (Foucault) toward internal and external surveillance, normalization, and decreased risk. The paper first discusses factors participants believed contributed to offending. It then analyzes the program and participants’ experiences, focusing on exercises about the mind (fantasy), Internet usage (disclosure and relationships), needs met by offending (Good Lives and true needs), and planning for the future (relapse prevention). Critical is that participants are encouraged to reengage offline lives and enact discipline on and to the online world. Thus, the article ends with an anthropologically-minded discussion about digital norms, online morality, and implications for Internet offender psychoeducational practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".