Teenage killers : a comprehensive examination of Canadian youth-perpetrated homicide, psychopathy, motivation, violence, and the number of perpetrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homicide is, arguably, the most extreme type of criminal behaviour. Despite its obvious importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted on youth homicide—with even less focusing on Canadian data. Recent research on Canadian adult-perpetrated homicides (e.g., M. Juodis, M. Woodworth, S. Porter, & L. ten Brinke, in press; M. Woodworth & S. Porter, 2002) indicates that homicides can be reliably differentiated across particular offence characteristics (i.e., motivation, psychopathy, and the number of perpetrators). Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the potential differences in the characteristics of Canadian youth-perpetrated homicide across motivation, psychopathy, and the number of perpetrators. Clinical files (N=105) of youth charged with homicide between 1990 and 2008 were coded across a number of items designed to capture youth-specific variables. Results revealed important significant differences. Specifically, youth were more likely to commit instrumental than reactive homicides (p <.001). However, low psychopathy youth were 4 times more likely to commit reactive homicides when acting alone (p <.01), whereas youth scoring high on psychopathy showed a preference for instrumental homicides, regardless of the number of perpetrators. Additionally, only the affective component of psychopathy predicted instrumentality (p <.05). Gratuitous and sexual violence were also more likely when a high psychopathy youth was involved in the homicide (p <.01). Finally, youth committed substantially more homicides with accomplices and against strangers than previously reported. Implications for prevention, treatment, and criminal investigation of youth-perpetrated homicides 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".