Not Wanted in the Inbox!: Evaluations of Unsolicited and Harassing E-Mail
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
This study was designed as a first step to explore sexual harassment in the electronic domain. One hundred six students read 10 e-mail messages ranging from jokes to spam to a sexual proposition from a stranger and rated them on an offensiveness evaluative scale. Participants also completed social desirability and attitudes toward sexual harassment scales. Messages with sexual content were generally perceived less favourably than e-mail without such content. Gender was critical to the experience of receiving many types of e-mail messages. When the e-mail content was perceived to be offensive, women found it more offensive than did men. Marked gender differences emerged in response to the sexual proposition, which women perceived to be extremely offensive while men rated it as somewhat enjoyable. Tolerance of sexual harassment and familiarity with a type of e-mail were also related to lower offensiveness evaluations for some messages.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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