MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041995332 · doi:10.1177/0886260504266887

Stranger and Acquaintance Sexual Assault of Adult Males

2004· article· en· W2041995332 on OpenAlexaff
Lana Stermac, Giannetta Del Bove, Mary Addison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual assaultPoison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionSexual coercionPsychiatryMedicineHuman factors and ergonomicsAdult maleOccupational safety and healthPsychologySex offenseSexual violenceMedical emergencySexual abuseClinical psychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined victim and assault characteristics and the nature and extent of coercion, violence, and physical injuries among adult male victims of sexual assaults. Client records of three groups presenting to a sexual assault care center were included: males assaulted by a stranger (n = 64), males assaulted by an acquaintance (n = 81), and females assaulted by an acquaintance (n = 106). Study results revealed that male victims of sexual assault tended to be young, single men who reported high rates of vulnerabilities such as homelessness and physical, psychiatric, and cognitive disabilities. Male stranger assailant victims were more likely to experience assaults involving weapons and physical violence. Injuries sustained by victims and services delivered at the sexual assault care center were similar for both male and female clients. The results of this study reveal new information about violence in male sexual assaults and the vulnerability of the male victims.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations94
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207