Cognition and psychopathy in incarcerated sexual offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The objective was to investigate if perpetrators of sexual offenses against children and adolescents with and without psychopathy differ regarding cognitive aspects. Method: A total of 30 male inmates participated in the study, divided into two groups: one that included psychopaths and the other with non-psychopaths. The instruments used were: protocol for collecting information on criminal court records; Rorschach test according to the Performance Assessment System, considering the cognitive variables and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Scale. Results: The results indicate that psychopaths exhibit greater impairment in the organization of thoughts, as well as greater vulnerability to the general personality disruption. The best regression model showed that 55% of psychopathy can be explained by a greater propensity to a general personality disorder (EII-3 β: 4.77; p-value < 0.001), associated with the predisposition to be arrested at a young age (β: -0.26; p-value = 0.004). Conclusion: The efficiency of the R-PAS is observed in the identification of cognitive failures in psychopath perpetrators of sexual violence and perpetrators of sexual violence, and its usefulness is enhanced, when associated with other behavioral measures in the identification of this type of personality profile.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".