Target Selection and Crime Characteristics: A Comparison of Sexually Motivated Abduction Cases to Nonsexual Abduction Cases and Nonabduction Sexual Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abduction has been related to a more extensive violent criminal record, suggesting that it represents a risk for escalation in violence. As most research has investigated child abductions, the current study compares sexually motivated abductions ( n = 1,288) to nonsexually motivated abductions ( n = 270) and nonabduction sexual assaults ( n = 1,500) involving both children and adult women victims. Logistic regression analyses showed that compared with nonsexually motivated abductions, those that are sexually motivated are typically committed on victims who are single, while they are hitchhiking at night, and perpetrated in the offender’s car. Moreover, when compared with nonabduction sexual assaults, results show that individuals who commit sexually motivated abductions are more likely to use a con approach on a stranger victim, to use a weapon, restraints, inflict serious injuries, and penetrate vaginally the victim either in their residence or their car. Abduction cases are often characterized by instrumental violence and both children and adult women need to be prioritized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".