The Effect of Hypervigilance on the Relationship Between Sexual Victimization and Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies investigated the relationship between hypervigilance, vulnerable gait cues, and a history of sexual victimization. In Study 1 ( N = 130), gait was coded for traits relating to vulnerability where half of the sample was unaware of being videotaped (Unaware condition) and the other half was aware (Aware condition) to induce hypervigilance (between-subjects design). Gait was associated with a history of victimization, but only in the Unaware condition. A mediation analysis found that perceived impact of victimization mediated the association between victimization and vulnerable gait. In Study 2, female university students ( N = 62) were measured on their victimization history and hypervigilance. Walking styles of participants were coded for the presence of vulnerability cues in both an Unaware and Aware condition (within-subjects design). A regression analysis revealed an association between hypervigilance and a reduced change in walking style between the two conditions. More notably, hypervigilance was found to moderate the relationship between sexual victimization and vulnerable gait but not violent victimization and vulnerable gait. These results suggest that hypervigilance may be an adaptive response that reduces perceived vulnerability in sexually victimized women.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".