MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061822370

The Screening Scale for Hebephilic Interests (SSHI)

2020· other· en· W7061822370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual arousalScale (ratio)Sex offenseTest (biology)Sexual violencePoison controlParaphiliaHuman factors and ergonomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study is an analysis of archival data from a sexual behaviour clinic in Toronto, Canada. The dataset is comprised of offenders who were referred to the clinic for a sexological assessment and includes assessment information, such as victim information and phallometric assessment data for each offender. Victim information is comprised of official file information and official criminal history documentation. Phallometric testing is a psychophysiological measure of sexual arousal to different stimuli which vary by sex (male or female) and sexual development (prepubescent, pubescent, and adult). The purpose of this study is to examine victim characteristics that are positively associated with a primary sexual interest in pubescent children (hebephilia) and to combine these items to develop a scale that can accurately classify offenders with primary hebephilic interests from those who have no sexual interest in children. The classification of these two groups (primary hebephilia versus no sexual interest in children) is based on phallometric testing (see ‘Indices’).

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→