MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412487880 · doi:10.1080/10538712.2025.2530423

Understanding the Psychological Profile of Children and Youth Engaging in Sexual Contact with non-Human Animals: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4412487880 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Logan Neable, Michelle Schwier, Alice Lee, Neznanov Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Sexual Abuse · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityThe King's UniversityOntario Tech UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosexual developmentMental healthIntervention (counseling)PsychologyStressorSexual abuseClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyReproductive healthSexual behaviorSuicide preventionPoison controlMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is developmentally normal for children to display some sexual behaviors but concerning sexual behaviors (CSBs) that deviate from societal norms are potentially harmful. The development of CSBs is influenced by various factors, including family dynamics, parental stressors, and disruptions in psychosexual development. Historically, sexual abuse was seen as the primary cause of CSBs, but current research suggests that nonsexual abuse and family environment also play significant roles. This scoping review synthesized literature on the psychological characteristics of children and youth who engage in sexual contact with animals, providing guidance for practitioners. The 17 studies reviewed, primarily from the U.S. documented a range of sexual behaviors toward animals by youth. These youths were often linked to troubled backgrounds and mental health issues, though some cases showed no significant psychological problems. The findings underscore the need for thorough psychological assessment to determine if these behaviors are isolated incidents or part of a broader pattern requiring intervention. This study highlights the lack of research in this area and the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, emphasizing that these behaviors are often associated with mental health issues and family instability, making early intervention crucial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Sexual AbuseSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207