Filicidal Women: Jail or Psychiatric Ward?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the legal procedure that women who are charged with killing their children experience and to compare the variables that discriminate between those found guilty and those who received a medical disposition. METHOD: The sample comprises 32 adult women who killed their biological children in the province of Quebec over an 11-year period (1981 to 1991). RESULTS: Of the sample, 18 women were found guilty, and 14 received a medical disposition. Of those who were the object of a penal disposition, most received a sentence that exceeded 2 years. Women who were sentenced to prison had a lower socioeconomic status and, compared with those who received a medical disposition, were more likely to have had a criminal and substance abuse history. Further, this latter subgroup of women were more likely to have a psychiatric history, to suffer from psychotic symptoms, and to become oriented to the mental health system immediately after their offense. CONCLUSIONS: These comparative results suggest that women's profiles differ according to some descriptive variables. From a clinical point of view, however, these results do not suggest that a different approach with respect to treatment of filicidal women or prevention of filicide would be more appropriate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".