MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491429061 · doi:10.1002/car.2358

Maternal and Paternal Filicide: Case Studies from the Australian Homicide Project

2014· article· en· W1491429061 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Abuse Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsHomicideSuicide preventionPoison controlMental healthPsychologyInjury preventionSituational ethicsOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsAccidentalPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data drawn from the Australian Homicide Project were used to examine whether and how maternal and paternal filicide perpetrators differ in terms of motivations for filicide and childhood and adulthood adversities. In addition, key differences between filicide and non‐filicide perpetrators were examined. Data were collected across a number of states and territories in Australia between 2010 and 2013 through interviews with 231 men and women convicted of murder or manslaughter. Of these participants, 14 had perpetrated filicide. Detailed information on the developmental background of the perpetrators, as well as motives and situational contexts of the homicide incidents, was gathered through the interviews. Findings from the current study reveal some important gender differences among filicide perpetrators. For example, filicidal fathers are more likely to perpetrate accidental filicide, and to report unemployment, alcohol and drug problems and previous engagement in child abuse, while filicidal mothers are more likely to perpetrate altruistic or neglectful filicide, and to report mental health problems. In addition, male filicide perpetrators report a greater number of adversities compared to male non‐filicide perpetrators, while female filicide perpetrators display fewer adversities compared to their non‐filicide counterparts. ‘Findings from the current study reveal some important gender differences among filicide perpetrators’ Key Practitioner Messages Practitioners are uniquely placed to assist in filicide prevention. Opportunities for service providers to raise awareness of key risk factors for filicide are crucial. Health and social service providers are ideally placed to screen parents seeking support to uncover early warning risks. Mental health service support is crucial, particularly for mothers, as is screening parents for severe depression or suicidal ideations. Provision of parenting support skills to help parents cope with extreme stress appears salient. ‘Health and social service providers are ideally placed to screen parents seeking support to uncover early warning risks’

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.302 · 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