A Listening Guide Analysis of Women’s Experiences of Unacknowledged Rape
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the empirical literature, unacknowledged rape has been well documented. But due to ethical and methodological challenges, very few researchers have employed qualitative methods to examine unacknowledged rape. Through pre-screening and careful articulation of interview questions, these barriers were overcome, and 10 undergraduate women from the University of Windsor were interviewed about their experiences of unlabeled sexual assault. I used the Listening Guide to inform both the methodology and the data analysis. I identified three voices pertaining to rape acknowledgment. These voices were labeled the not knowing voice, the knowing voice, and the ambivalent voice, and I illustrate that rape acknowledgment is not dichotomous and that women can both simultaneously recognize and resist the labels of rape and sexual assault. This article addresses the need for a multidimensional understanding of rape acknowledgment. I discuss the implications the findings have for how we understand and respond to women, as they negotiate the labeling of coercive sexual experiences. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available to PWQ subscribers on PWQ's website at http://pwq.sagepub.com/supplemental
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it