MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284895562 · doi:10.1177/10887679221097626

Familicide in Canada, 2010 to 2019

2022· article· en· W4284895562 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ciara Boyd, Danielle Sutton, Myrna Dawson, Angelika Zecha, Julie Poon, Anna‐Lee Straatman, Peter G. Jaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueHomicide Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCommitContext (archaeology)HomicideCriminologyOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsUnivariateInjury preventionWarning signsPsychologyMedical emergencyPolitical scienceMedicineGeographyEngineeringLawComputer scienceTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Familicide is rare; however, the high victim counts in each incident and context surrounding these killings underscore the need for further research. The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding familicide in Canada. Using univariate statistics, this study analyzed 26 incidents of familicide that occurred in Canada between 2010 and 2019. The results show that familicide is a gendered crime involving primarily male accused who often target female victims, have a history of domestic violence, and commit the killings using firearms. This research highlights the importance of developing risk assessment, risk management, and safety planning strategies to address warning signs and prevent future familicides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHomicide StudiesSame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207