Mental Health of Homicidally Bereaved Individuals: A Systematic Review of Post-Homicide Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiencing the homicide of a loved one has a substantial impact on the mental health of family members and friends who must survive their loved one’s tragic death. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current findings on post-homicide factors and identify the factors most frequently related to the mental health of homicidally bereaved individuals (HBI). Four databases were searched (PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Sociological Abstract, PubMed). The selection of studies was based on a peer review process conducted by two independent researchers to ensure interrater reliability. The articles were screened to ensure the presence of homicidally bereaved adults, resulting in a total of 35 eligible papers to be considered in the current review. Factors were organized into categories, with the criminal justice system-related factors ( n = 18), social factors ( n = 17), and coping factors ( n = 13) being the most prevalent. This review identifies clinical avenues for preventing distress and fostering the well-being of HBI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".