The CPORT and Risk Matrix 2000 for Men Convicted of Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM) Offenses: A Predictive Accuracy Comparison and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is demand for valid risk assessment of individuals with child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) offenses. We compared the predictive performance of the Risk Matrix 2000/Sex (RM2000/S) and the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT) among 365 men convicted of CSEM offenses. In fixed 5-year follow-up analyses, the CPORT (area under the curve [AUC] = .73) had significantly higher predictive accuracy than the RM2000/S (AUC = .66) for any sexual recidivism. The predictive difference for CSEM recidivism was not statistically significant. A meta-analysis found the CPORT had large effects in predicting sexual recidivism (AUC = .75) and moderate accuracy for CSEM recidivism (AUCs = .65 and .66), while the RM2000/S had moderate accuracy in predicting any sexual recidivism (AUC = .66; insufficient studies of CSEM recidivism). Results suggest a tool developed specifically for CSEM offending, such as CPORT, may perform better at predicting any sexual recidivism than adapting a general sexual offending risk tool.
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 | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".