Protective Factors and Sub-Groups of Sexually Offending Adolescents: Implications for Conceptualization and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents who sexually offend are highly diverse both in risk and protective factors. This pilot study assesses 38 adjudicated adolescents convicted of a sexual offense residing in a secure care juvenile detention facility in order to determine which protective factors are most significantly correlated with reduced sexual re-offense risk. The study also explores differences across two sub-groups of the population by investigating the distinctions between the roles of specific protective factors among adolescents who have committed only a sexual offense (sex-only sub-group) in comparison to adolescents who have committed a sexual offense in addition to other delinquent behavior (sex-plus sub-group). Analysis was conducted utilizing the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale, 2nd Edition, Youth Rating Scale, the Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire, and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-Revised. The results indicate that sex-only adolescents demonstrate a significantly lower risk sexual recidivism and have greater affective strength compared to sex-plus adolescents. The sex-only sub-group also demonstrate large correlations for reduced sexual recidivism risk in relationship with the protective factors of School Functioning, Affective Strength, Interpersonal Strength, and Career Strength.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".