Healthcare Serial Killers as Confidence Men
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although there is adequate coverage of serial murder in the extant homicide literature, there is a lack of systematic examination of healthcare professionals who serially murder their patients. Using a sample of 58 healthcare serial killers located within North America, South America, and Europe between the years of 1970 and 2010, this study examines notable pre‐offense and post‐offense behaviours of healthcare serial killers. Patterns related to offender aetiology, victim cultivation, crime scene behaviour, and techniques of evasion were explored. The findings from this study suggest that the pre‐offense and post‐offense behaviours of healthcare serial killers can be conceptualised from the theoretical framework of confidence men or ‘con men’. The findings from this study also suggest that healthcare serial killings and offenders who perpetrate them continue to be elusive and warrant additional scholarly attention to reduce their likelihood of engaging in homicide undetected for extended time. Policy implications are also discussed. Copyright © 2013 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it