MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255754057 · doi:10.11114/ijsss.v4i3.1290

Multiple Victimization & Sexual Revictimization

2016· article· en· W2255754057 on OpenAlexaff
Norman Isaiah Graham, Anne Smith, Mary Meade, David A. Patterson Silver Wolf, Jerry Song

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Science Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySexual assaultSexual behaviorPsychiatryCriminologyMedicineInjury preventionPoison controlMedical emergencySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Committing multiple victimization and sexual revictimization towards others can be labeled inhuman crimes that cause various forms of trauma to victims. In return, this results in higher mortality and tarnishes the connections between members of society. Five thousand three hundred people were used as a sample amount for the survey. The researcher wanted to know how people experiencing multiple victimizations and sexual revictimization can cause strain to one’s social life. The researcher also wanted to explore the connections to higher mortality rates as a result of the multiple victimizations and/or sexual revictimization to an individual. Results show that typical victims are those with little income and with an age range of 18 – 25; however, typical victims of sexual revictimization are usually outdoors during high-crime hours and with an age range of 18 – 25. With a lack of support, information and professionals with adequate experience to help those experiencing these offenses, victims resort to drugs, sex, and crime to ease their pain, making them feel alone in the world.

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)0.007
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social Science StudiesSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207