The vulnerability typology: Developing a biopsychosocial-sexual understanding of men with sexual interests in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the current study was to better understand biopsychosocial factors related to men with sexual interests in children (MSICs) who have no criminal history of sexual offending to clarify heterogeneity and potential targets for preventative intervention for persons who are at risk of sexual offending. Using online recruitment methods, self-report data on biopsychosocial-sexual factors was collected from community men reporting paraphilic and atypical sexual interests, including men with sexual interests in children ( n = 609; M age = 29.7 years) and a comparison group with other paraphilias ( n = 224; M age = 35.3 years). Data were used to develop a biopsychosocial-sexual typology of community men with pedohebephilic interests with no reported offence history. Latent cluster analysis identified three groups differentiated by relative endorsement of biopsychosocial vulnerability characteristics. Comparisons between profiles indicated a generally unimpaired profile (i.e., Low Vulnerability) relative to a group with intermediate vulnerabilities (i.e., Moderate Vulnerability) and a group with significant impairment across most assessed constructs (i.e., High Vulnerability). Results inform areas of need for secondary prevention among community MSICs with no historical justice system contact related to their sexual interests in children. Consistent with Risk-Need-Responsivity Model, this research suggests that intensity and dosage of preventative intervention for MSICs should match level of vulnerability.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".