[Neonaticides in France: analysis of 357 cases identified in the press (1993-2012)].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Despite easy access to contraception and child abandonment in France, neonaticides continue to occur and, although rare, are widely publicized. The objective of this study was to characterize neonaticides and their perpetrators over a twenty-year period in France based on cases reported in the press. Methods: 2,319 press articles describing the discovery of a newborn corpse in the regional and national press were extracted from electronic databases or other digital supports. A total of 357 neonaticides were described, corresponding to a mean annual rate of 2.34 per 100,000 births. Results: The mother was identified in 74% of cases. The corpse was usually discovered in the house or garden (35%, mostly in the rubbish bin and 6% in the freezer), but also in the wilds (31%). In almost one-quarter of cases, the mother had suffered a haemorrhage. Most neonates were killed by asphyxiation (35%), direct blows or being thrown out of a window (11%), or drowning (11%). Only 22% of neonates died without the mother’s intervention, due to lack of care or neglect. Marked regional disparities were observed, even after calculation of regional rates. The mothers responsible (230 women due to 19 multiple neonaticides) had a mean age of 27.8 years and half of them had at least one other living child. Conclusions: Media coverage of neonaticides and access to electronic databases provide an opportunity to describe a rare phenomenon, for which it is difficult to collect sufficient sample sizes to allow analysis of the perpetrators and court rulings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".