: Sexual reactivity of teleiophilic and pedophilic men to audio stimuli (a replication study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of pedophilic sexual preferences is an important part of forensic and research practice. Standardization of methods and stimuli used across sites is missing, making data transferability and comparability more difficult. The aim of this study was to investigate if the stimuli used in the USA and Canada are able to reliably distinguish between pedophilic and control subjects in the Czech Republic, based on their elicited sexual arousal. A stimuli set was first translated into Czech and voice recordings were created for the narratives. Sexual arousal was measured using circumferential penile plethysmography. 29 pedophilic (15 heterosexual; 14 homosexual) and 26 control (12 heterosexual; 12 homosexual) participants took part in the study. The sample comprised mostly non- delinquent individuals. The results revealed a significant difference in the subjective sexual arousal ratings as well as sexual reactivity between pedophiles and control participants in response to both child and adult stimulus categories. Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between subjective ratings and sexual reactivity to both child and adult stimulus categories. The results indicate that the audio recordings are a suitable tool to distinguish between pedophiles and controls. The...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".