The Criminal Activity of Sexual Offenders in Adulthood: Revisiting the Specialization Debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two major hypotheses have been put forward to describe the criminal activity of sexual offenders in adulthood. The first hypothesis states that sexual offenders are specialists who tend to repeat sexual crimes. The second hypothesis describes sexual offenders as generalists who do not restrict themselves to one particular type of crime. The current state of knowledge provides empirical support for both the specialization and the generality hypothesis. The presence of both generality and specialization in the offending behavior of sexual offenders is not as contradictory as it may first appear. However, methodological problems limit the possibility of drawing firm conclusions. Indeed, the specialization hypothesis is based on just one parameter of criminal activity, that is, recidivism, which only takes into account two consecutive crimes. The generality hypothesis is focused mainly on two criminal activity parameters, participation and variety, which do not take into account the dynamic nature of criminal activity over time. Developimental criminology provides a new paradigm to explore the issue of generality and specialization in the offending behavior of sexual offenders.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".