Trophy, souvenir, or simple theft? Taking items from the victim in sexual homicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although most people have heard the terms 'souvenirs', 'trophies', and 'mementos', discussed in books and movies on the true crimes of sexual murderers, limited research has delved into the phenomenon of theft in sexual homicide (SH). Using a sample of 762 SH cases coming from the Sexual Homicide International Database, the current study examines the crime-commission process of the pre-crime, crime, and post-crime phases of sexual homicide offenders (SHOs) who engaged in theft during a SH. Additionally, this study seeks to determine if a specific type of SHO engages in this behaviour over others. Results from the sequential logistic regression indicate that victims who are 16 years or older, were strangers to the SHO, and were sex workers were more likely to be victims of theft. Additionally, results indicate that the presence of sadism made it more likely the SHO would engage in theft from the victim and/or crime scene. Findings suggest there is a group of SHOs who engage in theft not for monetary purposes but due to the paraphilia of the offender. These findings can inform the police investigation of these crimes.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".