Sexual murderers of children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a scarcity of comparative studies on sexual murderers of children. Three studies have compared sexual murderers of children to sexual aggressors of women. In the former group, the prevalence of deviant sexual fantasies, prior convictions for non-contact sex crimes, consumption of pornography, compulsive masturbation, and social isolation was higher than in the group of sexual aggressors of women. Despite the value of these comparative studies, they were based on a limited number of sexual murderers of children ( N = 61). Consequently, the aim of the current study was to replicate and extend the previous ones. The total sample includes 66 adult male sexual murderers (26 of children, 40 of women). In our sample, sexual sadism and homicidal fantasies were less frequent in sexual murderers of children than in sexual murderers of women. Psychopathy was quite prevalent in both types of sexual murderers. Finally, the prevalence of psychosocial problems (social isolation, feelings of rejection, family problems) was lower in sexual murderers of children than in sexual murderers of women. These results obtained in a sample from France differ in many ways from those obtained in Canadian and German samples. The role of cultural factors is a possible explanation for these discrepancies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".