MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102232669 · doi:10.1177/0093854812436802

Factor Structure of the Bumby RAPE Scale

2012· article· en· W2102232669 on OpenAlexaff
Chantal A. Hermann, Kelly M. Babchishin, Kevin L. Nunes, Craig Leth‐Steensen, Franca Cortoni

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionExploratory factor analysisCLARITYScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyPoison controlDevelopmental psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychometricsMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rape-supportive cognition is both theoretically and empirically related to rape. Several types of rape-supportive cognition (cognitive distortions) have been identified in the literature, suggesting that rapists’ rape-supportive cognition may be multidimensional. The Bumby RAPE Scale is one measure of rape-supportive cognition. The authors conducted an exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations to examine the types of rape-supportive cognition assessed by the Bumby RAPE Scale with a sample of 280 adult male sex offenders. A two-factor model was found; the two factors were labeled Excusing Rape and Justifying Rape. The current study suggests that the Bumby RAPE Scale is multidimensional. This factor structure may provide greater precision and clarity in the assessment of rape-supportive cognition, which may facilitate more informative research and, ultimately, contribute to more effective sex offender treatment and management.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207