MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990311293 · doi:10.1177/0959353515576528

“You Can’t Touch Me, You Can’t Touch Me”: Inter-gender violence and aggression in the PG era of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) programming

2015· article· en· W1990311293 on OpenAlexaff
Betty Jo Barrett, Dana S. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminism & Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionEntertainmentPsychologyNarrativeInterpersonal violenceSocial psychologyGender studiesPoison controlSuicide preventionSociologyMedicineArtMedical emergencyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultivation theory posits that media sources may contribute to the development and subsequent internalization of distorted beliefs about violence by viewers. The present study examined representations of inter-gender violence and aggression in one form of violent media, World Wrestling Entertainment, from the period of 1 January to 1 July 2011 to assess narratives conveyed about violence between men and women. A total of 105 hours of televised episodes of World Wrestling Entertainment’s two highest rated shows were data sources for this analysis. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Three core themes pertaining to male–female violence were identified: (a) females as perpetrators of retaliatory physical violence against males, (b) males as perpetrators of physical, sexual, and verbal aggression to intimidate females, and (c) justifications for female violence against men behaving badly. Findings are considered in light of feminist and gender symmetry perspectives on male–female violence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminism & PsychologySame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207