Comparing distorted cognitions among university students and individuals convicted of sexual offences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little contemporary research has investigated the similarities and differences between individuals convicted of sexual offences and community samples with reference to beliefs supportive of sexual violence. This study compared the rape supportive cognitions of a group of high-risk individuals incarcerated for sexual offences to a group of university students. Antisocial cognitions were also examined in order to determine if such views accounted for any observed findings. A group of 304 male university students were compared to 301 men convicted of sexual offences attending assessment or treatment in an inpatient based treatment programme. Results indicated no significant differences between the rape supportive cognitions and antisocial cognition of people convicted of sexual offences and university students. Further analyses revealed that students who endorsed more rape supportive and antisocial cognitions reported using more coercive and aggressive tactics.PRACTICAL IMPACT STATEMENT:This article will assist researchers and practitioners in designing strategies for prevention of sexual violence among university students by comparing students’ distorted cognition to individuals convicted of sexual offending and by shedding light on the association between distorted cognitions and perpetration of sexual violence.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".