There Is No Such Thing as Zero Risk of Sexual Offending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public is justifiably concerned about the risk presented by individuals with a history of sexual crime. Given that recidivism risk varies across individuals and over time, what level is so low as to be indistinguishable from sexual recidivism risk in the general population (a desistance threshold)? This risk is not zero. Comparing census data with the number of males convicted of sexual offences in the province of British Columbia in two cohorts (2006, N = 362; 2011, N = 422), we found that approximately 1% of all adult males in British Columbia would be expected to be convicted of a sexual offence by age 50. Across the full lifespan (until 99), that proportion was estimated to be 1.38% for the 2006 cohort and 1.50% for the 2011 cohort. Other research has found that most individuals released from a sexual offence present a similarly low residual risk (< 2%) after 10 years of being offence-free in the community. Consequently, applying long-term restrictions (e.g., lifetime registration; Criminal Code of Canada §161) to such individuals serves no public protection function.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".