One Size Doesn’t Fit All: An Exploratory Typological Approach to Understanding Criminal Career Heterogeneity in Intimate Partner Homicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately one in seven homicides globally is committed by a partner within an intimate relationship. While criminology research on intimate partner homicide (IPH) perpetrators is extensive, their interactions with law enforcement remain underexplored. This study examines the criminal trajectories of IPH perpetrators to ascertain whether they exhibit common or diverse patterns. Utilizing data from Quebec's official criminal events database, the study analyzes variables concerning the criminal histories of 1,780 individuals involved in attempted or completed IPH through latent profile analysis. Findings indicate five distinct profiles among IPH perpetrators: one-time, low-volume intimate partner violence (IPV), moderate-volume IPV, high-volume violence, and high-volume polymorphous perpetrators. The external validity of these profiles is assessed using additional criminal career, contextual, and situational variables. Implications for the justice system's practices and challenges are also discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".