MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986538853 · doi:10.1177/0093854807313410

Investigative Analysis of Neonaticide

2008· article· en· W1986538853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristen Beyer, Shannon McAuliffe Mack, Joy Lynn E. Shelton

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialPsychologySituational ethicsPsychiatryCriminal historyDescriptive statisticsLaw enforcementQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineSocial psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonaticide (defined as the killing of an infant within the first 24 hours of birth) has occurred throughout history for a variety of reasons. Law enforcement files involving 40 female offenders resulting in 41 infant deaths were examined. Descriptive and frequency statistics revealed that the majority of offenders were young women who had never been married and had no criminal or psychological history. However, approximately a quarter of the sample did not fit these characteristics, which has implications for broadening the scope of investigations. The findings of this research identified four main challenges associated with neonaticide investigations: (a) variation in offender characteristics and situational factors, (b) intermittent denial of the pregnancy, (c) the physical resiliency of the offenders, and (d) lack of documented mental health and criminal history. Correspondence should be addressed to Kristen R. Beyer, P.O. Box 6566, Fredericksburg, VA 22403; email: kristen.beyer@krbconsultants.com and/or Joy Lynn E. Shelton, FBI Academy - NCAVC, Quantico, VA 22135; email: jlshelton@fbiacademy.edu

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207