MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153407406 · doi:10.1177/0306624x02464002

Profiles in the Offending Process of Nonserial Sexual Murderers

2002· article· en· W2153407406 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Beauregard, Jean Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumiliationSadistic personality disorderHomicidePsychologyAngerPoison controlInjury preventionTypologySuicide preventionCriminologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyPersonalityMedical emergencyMedicinePersonality disordersSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate specific pathways in the offending processes of nonserial sexual murderers and to examine possible relationships with different precrime, per-crime, and postcrime factors. Included in this study were 36 offenders who have committed at least one sexual murder against a female victim and they were classified using cluster analysis. Participants using the sadistic pathway planned their offenses and used physical restraints during the offenses. Furthermore, they mutilated and humiliated their victims. Finally, they hid the bodies of the victims. Participants using the anger pathway had not premeditated the homicide. Mutilation, humiliation, and physical restraints were less predominant with these participants than with those using the sadistic pathway. Moreover, these offenders were more likely to leave the bodies at the crime scenes after the killings occurred. These two profiles are compared with empirical studies addressing sexual homicide.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.053 · 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

Citations167
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207