MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165765291 · doi:10.1177/1077559510367937

Sexual Coercion Experience and Sexually Coercive Behavior: A Population Study of Swedish and Norwegian Male Youth

2010· article· en· W2165765291 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Seto, Cecilia Kjellgren, Gisela Priebe, Svein Mossige, Carl Göran Svedin, Niklas Långström

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Maltreatment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorwegianSexual coercionCoercion (linguistics)PsychologyPopulationPoison controlInjury preventionSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsRisky sexual behaviorClinical psychologyCriminologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSexually activeMedical emergencyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors tested the hypothesis that experiencing sexual coercion and engaging in sexually coercive behavior are positively associated in a representative sample totaling almost 4,000 Swedish or Norwegian male high school students (estimated response rate 80%). In both surveys, youths who had experienced sexual coercion were approximately three times more likely to engage in sexually coercive behavior than those without such experience (10%-12% vs. 4%). The association between sexual coercion experience and sexually coercive behavior was attenuated but remained significant and moderately strong in both surveys when controlling for nonsexual antisocial behavior, substance use, and noncoercive sexual behavior in multivariate logistic regression models. The population attributable fraction (proportion of sexually coercive behavior that can be explained by sexual coercion experience) was 18%-25%. The findings support a robust link between having been sexually coerced and engaging in coercive sexual behavior in the general population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations69
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild MaltreatmentSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207