MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124181156 · doi:10.1080/07418820100095041

Male peer support and a feminist routing activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus

2001· article· en· W2124181156 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJustice Quarterly · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual assaultPsychologyCriminologySocial psychologySociologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Routine activities theorists traditionally have assumed offenders' motivation and victims' suitability from demographic correlates, and have done little to study effective guardianship. In this paper we ask questions directly of male date rape offenders to test the proposal that male peer support provides motivation; we ask lifestyle questions directly of both female victims and male offenders; and we discuss the extent to which abusive peers eliminate guardianship. Data from the Canadian National Survey support routine activities theory, and show that men who drink two or more times a week and have male peers who support both emotional violence and physical violence are nearly 10 times as likely to admit to being sexual aggressors as men who have none of these three traits. The data gathering was supported by a grant from the Family Violence Prevention Division of Health Canada to Walter DeKeseredy and Katharine Kelly; some of the data analysis was supported by a research grant from the University of Melbourne to Martin Schwartz. We would like to thank Victor Kappeler, Carol Blum, and the Ottawa Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women. The data gathering was supported by a grant from the Family Violence Prevention Division of Health Canada to Walter DeKeseredy and Katharine Kelly; some of the data analysis was supported by a research grant from the University of Melbourne to Martin Schwartz. We would like to thank Victor Kappeler, Carol Blum, and the Ottawa Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women. Notes The data gathering was supported by a grant from the Family Violence Prevention Division of Health Canada to Walter DeKeseredy and Katharine Kelly; some of the data analysis was supported by a research grant from the University of Melbourne to Martin Schwartz. We would like to thank Victor Kappeler, Carol Blum, and the Ottawa Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.268 · 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