Advancement of Criminal Profiling Methods in Faceted Multidimensional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study seeks to advance the faceted multidimensional scaling (termed FMDS) procedure used in much of the investigative psychology research. To this end, recent research on street robbery by Goodwill and colleagues will be utilised to illustrate the effectiveness of a facet scale method for offender profiling. Four FMDS themes of street robbery (Con, Blitz, Confrontation and Snatch) were revealed by the crossing of two underlying axial facets: the offenders' level of violence and interaction with the victim. The facet scale method, utilising offenders' axial facet scores, was compared to previous count, proportional and centroid classification methods in the prediction of offender criminal histories. Utilising logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses, the axial facet scale method was found to significantly outperform the qualitatively based dominant theme classification methods that typically employ angular and radial facets for FMDS interpretation. Implications for the use of axial facet scales within FMDS analysis for offender profiling research are discussed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".