Elderly Sexual Abuse: An Examination of the Criminal Event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study investigates the modus operandi specificities for the sexual abuse against the elderly. A comparison between sex crimes against adult and elderly victims is conducted following the criminal event approach. The comparison is based on the precrime, crime, and postcrime phases of the modus operandi, operationalized through 53 variables. The sample comes from a French national police database including a total of 1,829 cases-including 130 cases of elderly sexual abuse and 1,699 cases of sexual abuse against victims aged between 18 and 45 years. Bivariate and multivariate analyses are performed to examine the differences in the two groups. Several differences are observed between the two modus operandi. Findings indicate that the precrime phase is the most important to explain these differences, and this phase of the criminal event affects the rest of the decisions taken during the crime and postcrime phases. Specifically, we have highlighted that sexual crimes against the elderly are more violent and occur more often in the victim's residence. This study suggests that offenders targeting the elderly use specific crime characteristics, and this allows to highlight practical implications in terms of investigation and offender management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".