MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388014458 · doi:10.1177/10790632231210536

Interactions Between Offender and Crime Characteristics Leading to a Lethal Outcome in Cases of Sexually-Motivated Abductions

2023· article· en· W4388014458 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Beauregard, Julien Chopin

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)PsychologyLogistic regressionSample (material)CriminologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207