MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754197363 · doi:10.1177/0886260517731316

Abuse Is Abuse: The Influence of Type of Abuse, Victim Age, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making

2017· article· en· W2754197363 on OpenAlex
Chelsea L. Sheahan, Emily Pica, Joanna Pozzulo

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySexual abuseSuicide preventionPoison controlVerdictInjury preventionYoung adultHuman factors and ergonomicsPhysical abusePsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyMedical emergencyMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 556) read a trial transcript in which a soccer coach was accused of sexual abuse or physical abuse against a player. The victim's age (child, adolescent, or young adult), the defendant's age (young, middle age, or older adult), and the type of abuse (sexual or physical) were varied. Mock jurors provided a dichotomous and continuous verdict and rated their perceptions of the victim and the defendant. Although no differences on mock jurors' dichotomous verdict were found due to victim age, defendant age, or type of abuse, mock jurors provided higher guilt ratings when the abuse was sexual and both the victim and defendant were described as young adults. Similarly, mock jurors rated the victim more positively when the victim was described as a young adult (vs. child) for both sexual and physical abuse cases, and rated the defendant more positively when the victim was described as a child compared with young adult in sexual abuse cases. These findings suggest that mock jurors were largely influenced by victim age, particularly when the victim was described as an adult compared with a child.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.334 · 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