What Animated Cartoons Tell Viewers About Assault
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
Relying upon a content analysis of one specific type of medium to which young people are exposed beginning at an early age, on a regular basis, and for many years (i.e., animated cartoons), the present study examines what types of messages are provided about violence that takes the form of simple assault. This research examines the following issues: (1) How prevalent is violent assault in animated cartoons, and has this prevalence changed over time? (2) What characteristics tend to be associated with being a perpetrator or a victim of assault? (3) What types of effects are shown to result from hitting, slapping, or punching others? (4) What reasons are given for why cartoon characters engage in this type of violence? Results indicate that assault is fairly prevalent in cartoons (it is the most common type of violence shown) and that this prevalence has diminished over time. Most of the time, cartoons show assaults to "land" on their intended victims, but having done so, to cause few if any adverse effects. For example, victims rarely experience pain or incur cuts, scrapes, or broken bones, and they rarely suffer more serious consequences than these. Moreover, assaults rarely backfire on the perpetrators. Anger, revenge, and inherent meanspiritedness are the most common reasons implied for why characters commit acts of violent assault.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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