MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127824645 · doi:10.1177/0306624x08316969

Rape Myth Acceptance in Men Who Completed the Prostitution Offender Program of British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2127824645 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolin Klein, Margaret Kennedy, Boris B. Gorzalka

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyPsychologyPornographyOfficerSocial psychologyCoercion (linguistics)Sexual violenceCriminologySexual coercionPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicinePolitical scienceLawMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to characterize the attitudes and characteristics of men who solicit sex, this study investigated rape myth acceptance as assessed by a modification of Burt's Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. The participants were all men who took part in the Prostitution Offender Program of British Columbia after being arrested for attempting to solicit sex from an undercover police officer. Relationships between endorsement of rape myths, other attitudes, sexual behavior, and demographic variables were examined. Results reveal that age, education, use of pornography, ideal frequency of intercourse, and believing that purchasing sex is a problem are all negatively correlated with rape myth acceptance. Positive correlations were found between rape myth acceptance and sexual conservatism, sexual violence/coercion, and social desirability. Results are discussed in terms of the association between rape myth acceptance and the violence frequently perpetrated against those working in the sex trade.

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 score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207