Differentiating between Physically Violent and Nonviolent Stalkers: An Examination of Canadian Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is one of a few that empirically investigated factors that differentiated the physically violent stalker from the nonviolent stalker. Using discriminant analysis, 103 Canadian cases of "simple obsessional" stalking were examined. Overall, the success of the model for classifying cases into one of two groups was 81%. Results revealed that the physically violent stalker is more likely to: (a) have a stronger previous emotional attachment toward their victim; (b) be more highly fixated/obsessed with their victim; (c) have a higher degree of perceived negative affect towards their victim; (d) engage in more verbal threats toward the victim; and (e) have a history of battering/domestic abuse towards the victim. Overall, the variables that best differentiate the physically violent stalker from the nonviolent one appear to characterize underlying themes of anger, vengeance, emotional arousal, humiliation, projection of blame, and insecure attachment pathology.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".