Physical Height in Pedophilic and Hebephilic Sexual Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult men's height reflects, not only their genetic endowment, but also the conditions that were present during their development in utero and in childhood. We compared the adult heights of men who committed one or more sexual offenses and who were erotically interested in prepubescent children (pedophilic sexual offenders; n=223), those who were erotically interested in pubescent children (hebephilic sexual offenders; n=615), and those who were erotically interested in adults (teleiophilic sexual offenders; n=187), as well as men who had no known sexual offenses and who were erotically interested in adults (teleiophilic nonoffender controls; n=156). The pedophilic and the hebephilic sexual offenders were significantly shorter than the teleiophilic nonoffender controls. The teleiophilic sexual offenders were intermediate in height between the nonoffenders and the pedophilic and hebephilic sexual offenders and not significantly different from any of the other groups. This suggests that—regardless of whatever psychological sequelae might also have followed from the conditions present during early development—pedophilic and hebephilic sexual offenders were subject to conditions capable of affecting their physiological development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".