MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104292577 · doi:10.1177/1079063210375975

Victims’ Routine Activities and Sex Offenders’ Target Selection Scripts: A Latent Class Analysis

2010· article· en· W2104292577 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScripting languageSituational ethicsPsychologySelection (genetic algorithm)Latent class modelClass (philosophy)Relevance (law)Track (disk drive)IntrusionSocial psychologyCriminologyComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates target selection scripts of 72 serial sex offenders who have committed a total of 361 sex crimes on stranger victims. Using latent class analysis, three target selection scripts were identified based on the victim's activities prior to the crime, each presenting two different tracks: (1) the Home script, which includes the (a) intrusion track and the (b) invited track, (2) the Outdoor script, which includes the (a) noncoercive track and the (b) coercive track, and (3) the Social script, which includes the (a) onsite track and the (b) off-site track. The scripts identified appeared to be used by both sexual aggressors of children and sexual aggressors of adults. In addition, a high proportion of crime switching was found among the identified scripts, with half of the 72 offenders switching scripts at least once. The theoretical relevance of these target selection scripts and their practical implications for situational crime prevention strategies are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.284 · 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