MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139460255 · doi:10.1177/10778010122183838

Violence, Injury, and Presentation Patterns in Spousal Sexual Assaults

2001· article· en· W2139460255 on OpenAlexaff
Lana Stermac, Giannetta Del Bove, Mary Addison

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpouseSexual coercionSexual assaultInjury preventionPoison controlPsychologySuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsCoercion (linguistics)Occupational safety and healthMedical emergencySexual violenceIntimate partnerMedicineDomestic violencePsychiatryClinical psychologyCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the nature and extent of coercion, violence, and physical injury among victims of sexual assaults committed by spouses(n = 97) and compared these to sexual assaults committed by boyfriends (n = 256) and acquaintances (n = 194). The results of the study reveal that women assaulted by spouses reported for treatment sooner than other groups of women and were more likely to call the police. Although assaults committed by spouse and boyfriend assailants were generally more physically violent and resulted in more victim injury than assaults by acquaintances, an overall linear relationship between variables and the degree of victim-perpetrator familiarity was not found. These results challenge the enduring stereotypes suggesting spousal sexual assaults are less serious and less violent.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207