Juvenile Sexual Murderers: Examination and Classification of the Crime‐Commission Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to empirically explore the crime-commission process of juvenile sexual homicide offenders (SHOs). First, a comparison between the crime-commission process of juvenile and adult SHOs is undertaken, while as a second step, this study also provides an empirical classification specific to juvenile SHOs. The sample used in this study consists of 55 juvenile SHOs and 281 adult SHOs. A sequential binomial regression was used to compare at the multivariate level the two groups of offenders, while a latent class analysis was used to examine the relationships between each step of the crime-commission process of juvenile SHOs. Our findings suggest that the crime-commission process of juvenile SHOs present differences when compared with adult SHOs. Moreover, we identified four different patterns in juvenile sexual homicide: explosive opportunistic, sadistic, overcontrolled anger, and predator. Theoretical and practical implications in terms of criminal investigations as well as offenders' management and treatment are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".