Comparing Child Homicide: An Examination of Characteristics by Degrees of Intimacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child homicides are rare occurrences, but when they occur, they often cause significant outrage. This paper examines the role of varying degrees of intimacy between victims and perpetrators in determining characteristics in child homicide cases. Focusing on 533 cases of child homicide between 1985 and 2012 in Ontario, Canada, characteristics of intrafamilial and extrafamilial cases, biological and step/foster parents, and maternal and paternal perpetrators are compared. Results show that characteristics of the child homicide vary depending on the degree of intimacy between victims and perpetrators, including: perpetrator and victim age, weapon use, suicide following the offence, sexual violence and use of excessive force. These findings provide support for developmental victimology and a routine activities theoretical perspective. Suggestions for future research and policy implications are also discussed. ‘Examines the role of varying degrees of intimacy between victims and perpetrators in determining characteristics in child homicide cases’ Key Practitioner Messages Younger children are at a greater risk of homicide from family members, while older children are at a greater risk of homicide from individuals outside the family. Developmental victimology and routine activities theory can contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics between victims and perpetrators in child homicide. Collaboration should take place between researchers, child death review committees, mental health services, social services and policymakers to improve child homicide prevention and intervention initiatives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".