Sexual and Nonsexual Homicide in Scotland: Is There a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While a number of previous studies have compared sexual homicides to nonlethal sexual offenses, there have been few studies comparing sexual and nonsexual homicides. This study examines whether sexual homicide offenders differ from nonsexual homicide offenders in Scotland regarding characteristics of the offender, the victim, and the homicide incident. Unlike previous studies, only homicides committed by males against females were examined. Data from a national police database were used to compare 89 male sexual homicide offenders who killed adult females with 306 male nonsexual homicide offenders who had also killed adult females using bivariate and multivariate (logistic regression) analyses. The findings revealed not only some similarities between the two groups, particularly regarding some victim variables, but also significant bivariate and multivariate differences. Sexual homicides appeared to be associated with indicators of instrumentality and sexual deviance. We conclude that sexual homicide offenders might be considered a distinct group of homicide offenders, more similar to sexual offenders than to other homicide offenders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".