MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413383374 · doi:10.1080/13218719.2025.2521626

Typologies of women who have sexually offended: exploring psychosocial, developmental and motivational characteristics

2025· article· en· W4413383374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tess Patterson, Linda Hobbs, E. R. Brown, Melissa Purnell, Nadine McKillop, Susan Rayment‐McHugh, Larissa S. Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Psychology and Law · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychosocialDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typologies classify persons based on characteristics and motivation of offending and inform clinical treatment, and management of, people who commit acts of sexual harm. Research examining typologies of women who have sexually offended (WWSO) is limited. We address this gap by examining court sentencing decisions for WWSO against children and adults in New Zealand, Australia and Canada (N = 62) to formulate typologies. We consider a broad range of individual and developmental factors, including offender background and psychosocial factors (e.g. experience of sexual abuse, adverse childhood experiences and mental health difficulties) to further describe this heterogenous population. Four typologies of WWSO emerged: ‘Anti-social’ motivated by revenge, malice or material gain; ‘Seeking Love’ motivated by seeking intimacy and love; ‘Seeking Sexual Gratification’ motivated to fulfil their own sexual desires; and ‘Seeking to Please Others’ motivated to please others or win others’ affection. These typologies have clinical implications for identifying key assessment and treatment targets for WWSO.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry Psychology and LawSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207