Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The idea that criminal behavior is a function of the offender's personality, also called the Homology hypothesis, has a long history in forensic psychology and criminology. This assumption, however, has been decried as lacking empirical support. In spite of much social concern relative to sexual offenses, there is virtually no research looking at the stability of offending pattern in sex offenders of adult women. This paper aims to fill some of the gaps. Design/methodology/approach Latent structure analyses were conducted on a secondary dataset including 145 serial rapists. A cross‐sectional, discrete time‐series design was used including a sequence of three offenses. Findings Moderate support was found for the three main assumptions underlying the Homology hypothesis. Offenses tended to share a relatively similar underlying structure, with the victimology and aggression components being more prominent than the sexual dimension. The three primary profiles identified, labeled “Passive”, “Stranger‐aggressive”, and “Antisocial”, were found to be about 50 percent stable across the sequence. Finally, the presence of significant dysfunction in the family of origin predicted membership in the “Antisocial” class, as well as increased the specificity and stability of this profile. The presence of early maladjustment was not related to any of the states. Research limitations/implications Based on the results, it is proposed that future research incorporates contextual‐environmental elements in order to increase the validity of the findings. Originality/value This study represents a unique attempt at documenting patterns of stability and variations across incidents of rape, using an institutional sample. Furthermore, it illustrates the use and potential benefits of latent structure models in criminological research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".