Evaluating Child Sexual Abuse Perpetration Prevention Efforts: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many child sexual abuse prevention efforts focus on the prevention of victimization, through education of children and parents, bystander training, and policies and practices in youth-serving organizations (e.g. requiring criminal record checks). However, there has been growing attention to child sexual abuse perpetration prevention, targeted at individuals who are at risk of perpetration. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes for child sexual abuse perpetration prevention interventions. Only seven studies were identified in our review, with five intended for adults and two intended for children. Four of the five adult studies had significant methodological concerns, precluding strong conclusions from these studies. We concluded that higher-quality evaluations of perpetration prevention efforts are greatly needed. We also identified intrafamilial perpetration prevention, particularly interventions for parents or caregivers, as a critical gap in the literature. Suggestions for child sexual abuse perpetration intervention evaluation and delivery are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it