Interactions Between Offender and Crime Characteristics Leading to a Lethal Outcome in Cases of Sexually-Motivated Abductions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread public concern regarding abduction, research on this type of crime is scarce. This lack of research is even more pronounced when looking at cases that end with the death of the victim. In fact, all of the research looking at lethal outcomes in cases of abductions has focused exclusively on child victims and has failed to consider the interactions at the multivariate level between the factors related to the death of the victim. Therefore, the aim of the study is to identify offender and crime characteristics - as well as their interactions - associated with a lethal outcome in sexually-motivated abductions using a combination of logistic regression and neural network analyses on a sample of 281 cases (81 cases ending with a lethal outcome, random sample of 200 comparison cases). Findings show that sexually-motivated abductions ending with a lethal outcome are more likely to be characterized by an offender who is a loner, forensically aware, and who who uses a weapon and restraints, and who sexually penetrates and beats a known victim. The neural network analysis show that three different pathways lead to a lethal outcome in sexually-motivated abductions. Such findings are important for correctional practices.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".