MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768794213 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n6p91

Undergraduates’ Attitudes toward Dating Violence: Its Relationship with Sexism and Narcissism

2017· article· en· W2768794213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmet Erdem, Rukiye Şahin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDating violenceAmbivalencePsychologyNarcissismSocial psychologyPersonalityScale (ratio)Human factors and ergonomicsDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPoison controlDomestic violenceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, whether the undergraduates’ attitude levels towards the dating violence differed in terms of gender, dating relationship status, being exposed to the dating violence and resorting to the dating violence was investigated. The sample of the study was composed of 1171 undergraduates. In the research, “The Attitudes toward Dating Violence Scales, Ambivalent Sexism Scale, Ambivalence toward Men Scale, Narcissistic Personality Inventory, and Personal Information Form” were used as the data collection tools. In conclusion, significant differences were determined in the university students’ attitudes towards the dating violence according to the different demographic variables (gender, dating relationship status, being exposed to the dating violence and resorting to the dating violence). Moreover, university students’ attitudes towards dating violence were determined to positively and significantly correlate with their ambivalence sexism levels. Ambivalence toward men was determined to positively and significantly correlate with their attitudes towards dating violence. In addition, university students’ narcissistic personality traits were found to positively and significantly correlate with their attitudes towards dating violence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207