Assessing The Agonistic Continuum Scale as a measure of sexual sadism in a sample of community members and BDSM practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual sadism refers to a sexual preference for fantasies and behaviours involving the infliction of humiliation, degradation, and suffering onto others. The conceptualization of sexual sadism remains a contentious issue in the literature, with some believing sexual sadism is qualitatively distinct from other deviant sexual preferences, while others suggest it lies on a continuum of sexually aggressive behaviours. This second approach, known as the Agonistic Continuum, is a relatively novel conceptualization of sexual sadism. Its companion scale, The Agonistic Continuum Scale (TACS), was created to measure sexual sadism as a dimensional construct in both forensic and community samples. Despite several validation studies being conducted, the factor structure of the TACS has yet to be independently assessed. As such, the current study sought to assess the factorial validity and measurement invariance of the TACS in a community sample made up of primarily BDSM practitioners using a series of confirmatory factor analyses and latent profile analyses. 248 Canadian adults (65.3% females, 75.6% BDSM practitioners) completed a survey containing a demographic questionnaire and several measures of paraphilic interest including the TACS. Results of the factor analyses suggested a four-factor model provided the best fit to the data. However, incorporating sex as a multigroup analysis factor rendered this model a significantly worse fit. Further, latent profile analysis results supported the ability of the TACS to identify groups differing in sexual sadism severity but returned significantly different fit statistics across sex groups. Taken together, while the results of past studies were partially replicated, our findings call into question the appropriateness of the TACS in mixed-sex and non-community samples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".