Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of Review This review presents recent findings of research focusing on sexual homicide. Firstly, we examine international comparative studies of victim, offender, and crime characteristics. Secondly, we review an important body of literature that compares developmental and psychological as well as the decision-making process of sexual murderers with other violent offenders. Thirdly, recent and major findings on links between sexual homicide and psychopathy as well as sadism are presented. Fourthly, findings on spatial behavior and factors that can explain it are discussed. Finally, the last section reviews characteristics of sexual homicide involving children and elderly victims. Recent Findings International comparisons suggest that sexual homicide presents more similarities than differences across countries implying that most of knowledge can be generalized and applied to other countries. Comparisons with other types of violent offenders highlight that sexual murderers are a specific type of offenders with particular characteristics (criminal careers, developmental factors, personality disorders, lifestyle characteristics) and crime commission process (modus operandi, spatial behavior). As to the etiological factors of sexual homicide, psychopathy and sadism are important characteristics of sexual murderers leading their criminal life as well as their everyday life. Finally, studies focusing on specific types of vulnerable victims showed a high level of heterogeneity within the population of sexual murderers. Summary Sexual murderers are specific offenders with peculiar characteristics and further research should develop proper knowledge on it. Creation of new international databases allows research to confirm and increase knowledge by considering sexual homicides as a complex heterogenous crime.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".