MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405655055 · doi:10.1177/10790632241309631

Online Sexual Offending Against Children: Recidivism Rates and Predictors

2024· article· en· W4405655055 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Paquette, Sébastien Brouillette‐Alarie

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité LavalInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismChild pornographyPsychologyPopulationPedophiliaClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Poison controlDevelopmental psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryThe InternetEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recidivism among individuals who have sexually offended poses a significant public health and safety concern. It is crucial to assess the predictive validity of traditional risk factors in individuals engaged in online child exploitation. This study examines recidivism rates and risk factors among individuals involved in online child sexual exploitation, analyzing data from a sample of 228 adult males who had committed sexual and nonsexual offenses at their index crime. The findings suggest that offense-supportive cognitions (Harrell's C = .73-.75) and emotional congruence with children (Harrell's C = .77) serve as predictors for contact sexual recidivism. Consumption of child sexual exploitation material and bestiality pornography are linked to online sexual recidivism (.69 and .75, respectively) and negatively related to sexual recidivism (.29 and .32, respectively). Overall, this research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of recidivism patterns and risk factors among individuals engaged in online sexual offenses against children, emphasizing the need for tailored intervention strategies in this population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207