Improvement of Thematic Classification in Offender Profiling: Classifying Serbian Homicides Using Multiple Correspondence, Cluster, and Discriminant Function Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates thematic classification of homicides for the purpose of behavioural investigative analysis (e.g. offender profiling). Previous research has predominantly used smallest space analysis (SSA) to conceptualise and classify offences into thematic groups based on crime scene behaviour data. This paper introduces a combined approach utilising multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), cluster analysis (CA), and discriminant function analysis (DFA) to define and differentiate crime scenes into expressive or instrumental and impersonal or personal crimes. MCA is used to derive the latent structural dimensions in the crime data and produce quantitative scores for each offence along these dimensions. Two‐step CA was then utilised to classify offences. Offence dimensional scores were then used to predict cluster membership under DFA, producing cluster centroids corresponding to MCA dimensions. Centroids were plotted on the MCA correspondence map to simultaneously conceptualise crime classification and the latent structure of the Serbian crime data. Classification of offences based on MCA dimensional scores were 91.5% accurate. This MCA–CA–DFA approach may reduce some of the more subjective aspects of SSA methodology used in classification, whilst producing a product more amenable to objective and cumulative review. Implications for offender profiling research utilising SSA and this approach are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".