The significance of unusual acts in sexual homicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In addition to being an unusual form of crime, sexual homicide (SH) sometimes includes unusual crime scene behaviours, such as carving on the victim, evisceration (i.e., removal of internal organs), skinning the victim, cannibalism and vampirism. The current study investigates these unusual crime scene behaviours to better understand their meaning as well as to explore whether such behaviours are associated with a specific crime‐commission process. Using a sample of 762 SH cases, the study uses a combination of chi‐square and stepwise forward logistic regression analyses to identify the differences between cases with and without unusual acts. Findings reveal that SH cases with unusual acts present a specific crime‐commission process. This crime‐commission process is characterised by a greater level of sadism—as demonstrated by the presence of mutilation and foreign object insertion—as well as a greater level of organisation from the selection of a contact location where the risk of being seen or heard was low. These findings provide a better understanding of these behaviours and could help investigators facing such cases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".