MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791499690 · doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2018.02.001

Sexual coercion: Thinking and understanding sexual violence beyond sexual offenders

2018· article· en· W2791499690 on OpenAlex
Massil Benbouriche, Geneviève Parent

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

VenueSexologies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual coercionSexual violencePsychologyCoercion (linguistics)CriminologySexual assaultSocial psychologyClinical psychologyMedical emergencyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual violence is a major social problem for which the incidence and prevalence are largely underestimated. In addition, available studies suggest that the vast majority of sexual violence is committed by individuals from the general population who are not (and probably never will be) identified by the authorities. By proposing to study a broader spectrum of behaviors than sexual offences alone, the concept of sexual coercion allows for a more accurate assessment of sexual violence as a whole. Following a proposed definition of sexual coercion, a selection of available key data is presented to illustrate the magnitude of the phenomenon. The conceptual and practical implications of favoring the notion of sexual coercion over sexual offences are discussed. This article ends with a presentation of the articles that are included in the thematic issue.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.237 · 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