MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259855255 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n1p185

Bangkok Men’s Attitudes towards Marital Rape

2016· article· en· W2259855255 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kittisak Jermsittiparsert, Paranee Kasemsukphaisit

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePsychologyCriminologySocial psychologyGender studiesDemographic economicsSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims (i) to explore Bangkok men’s understandings of section 276 of the criminal code; (ii) to examine the attitudes on marital rape as perceived by men in Bangkok and to conduct a comparative study on the observed attitudes using various demographic assessment factors, namely, age, marital status, occupation, and income level; (iii) to investigate the correlations between the level of understandings of the relevant law and the attitudes of men living in Bangkok on marital rape by employing quantitative research method, with the use of questionaries that would collect data from 280 research subjects. The data analysis is carried out using frequency, mean, percentage, one-way analysis of variance, least significant difference (LSD), and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient analysis with significance level 0.5. The research findings indicates that the subjects possess the least understandings of section 276 of the criminal code ( = .15) and contain average level of attitudes with respect to the issue of marital rape ( = 3.19). When examining with different assessment factors, it is found that the subjects bare an attitude of cognition at low level ( = 2.22), of feelings at average level ( = 3.36), and of action tendency at considerable level ( = 3.98). Results from the comparative analysis on different levels of attitudes over the issue of marital rape, using different demographic assessment factors, reveal that the difference in income generates different level of attitudes whereas the differences in age, marital status and occupation bare relatively similar level of attitudes. Lastly, no correlation is found when looking at the outcome of the correlation analysis between level of understandings and attitudes perceived.

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)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 venueReview of European StudiesSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207