MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557191836 · doi:10.20381/ruor-326

Gendered Nature of Cyber Victimization as a Mechanism of Social Control

2016· dissertation· en· W2557191836 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cassandra Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Social controlControl (management)PsychologyComputer securitySocial psychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceArtificial intelligenceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research used a deductive post-hoc statistical design and Statistics Canada’s 2009 General Social Survey on victimization to explore the social control function of cyber victimization and determine whether this is gendered. Social control was operationalized as a composite measure of self-responsibilization. A multiple regression analysis identified predictors of social control and additional multiple regression models were used for a gender specific examination of social control. A total of 14 predictor variables were entered into three blocks: cyber victimization; sociodemographic characteristics; and violent victimization in physical space. The results reveal that cyber victimization remains a significant predictor of social control in addition to gender, a number of other sociodemographic characteristics of respondents, and physical space victimization types. The findings suggest that the theory of social control, which has been applied to violence against women in physical space, can also be applied to cyber space victimizations. This study also provides insights into the compound effects of physical space and cyber space victimizations on women and identifies implications for policy, methods, and theories for addressing and examining violence against women in cyberspace.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentFrench-language works237,207