Sexual Homicide in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to describe and compare the modus operandi, and associated contextual and situational factors, of French serial sexual murderers (SSMs) and nonserial sexual murderers (NSMs). A further objective was to verify the generalizability of the conclusions of James and Proulx’s 2016 systematic review of the modus operandi of sexual murderers, the majority of whom were American or English. Detailed data on the precrime, modus operandi, postcrime, and victimology factors of 120 French sexual murderers (SSMs: n = 33; NSMs: n = 87) were compared. The results suggest that choice-structuring properties that shape the modus operandi of French sexual murderers are similar to those reported by James and Proulx: The modus operandi of French SSMs was shaped by homicidal, sadistic, and rape fantasies, while that of NSMs was shaped by the need to satisfy immediate, especially sexual, needs. However, it should be noted that while the modus operandi of American and English NSMs is primarily shaped by general deviance, that of French NSMs appear be primarily shaped by sexual deviance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".