Modus Operandi in Sexual Assaults of Female Strangers Does Not Change Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Criminological theories and widespread assumptions about crime suggest that the modus operandi involved in sexual crimes should have changed over time given various contextual changes, such as better criminological knowledge (e.g., forensic awareness) as well as improved investigative techniques (e.g., forensic evidence analysis). The aim of this study was to test whether the modus operandi patterns of individuals having committed a sexual assault against female strangers have changed over time during the period of 2003-2017. More specifically, the study has identified changes in the trends of monthly counts and (relative) participations for sexual assaults during the study period in France. The measure of participations - a concept borrowed from the field of criminal career - was used to overcome the inherent limitations associated with this type of data. Results show that despite some significant changes in the modus operandi involved in sexual crimes, overall the modus operandi patterns appear to be fairly stable over time. The findings are discussed in light of their theoretical and practical implications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".