Sex trade workers' narratives of sexual violence: A field investigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 119 sex trade workers were interviewed about sexually violent experiences. Up to three narratives were elicited: a remarkable, positive (control) event (POS), a well-remembered sexual assault (WELL), and a poorly recalled sexual assault (POOR). The results demonstrated that WELL narratives contained more details than POS narratives despite the fact that the respective experiences were older. WELL narratives were also associated with higher intoxication and more rehearsal than POS narratives. POOR narratives were as detailed as POS narratives. WELL narratives were associated with more PTSD symptoms than POOR narratives. No weapon focus effect and no differences in peritraumatic dissociation were observed to explain this difference. This study was the first to demonstrate great within-participants variability of narrative details in accounts of sexual violence. The findings challenge common opinions in the eyewitness literature. Implications for expert testimony and credibility assessment are 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it