Examining psychologically meaningful risk factors for detected sexual offending in a community sample of individuals with and without sexual interest in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychologically meaningful risk factors are central to understanding why certain individuals commit sexual violence and to the provision of effective clinical service. The present study examined whether risk factors and other clinically relevant factors distinguished those with sexual interest in children who have (n = 39) and have not sexually offended (n = 172), and a community control group (n = 65). Participants completed several established measures of risk factors (e.g. hypersexuality), answered questions about the nature of their sexual interest, and reported their history of adverse childhood experiences. The overarching finding was that individuals with sexual interest in children had elevations in various risk factors in comparison to community controls. Although there were fewer significant differences between those with sexual interest in children with and without an offending history, effect sizes across many of these analyses were moderate to large. Several clinically relevant factors distinguished all three groups.PRACTICE IMPACT STATEMENT There is some evidence that psychologically meaningful risk factors and other clinically relevant factors (e.g. adverse childhood experiences) identified in the wider literature on sexual offending distinguish those with sexual interest in children who have offended, have not offended and a community control group. These findings underscore the importance of identifying the presence of these specific factors via a comprehensive assessment, which would be important to consider in treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".