The Impact of Ethnicity, and Economic, Social, and Marital Status on Differences in the Frequency of Sexually Aggressive Behaviors among Women Living in Ufa, Russian Federation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The vast majority of recent research published on phenomenon of women's sexual aggression has been conducted with populations of college students from United States and Canada (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Spitzberg, 1999; Byers & O'Sullivan, 1996). One recent study from Germany, and another from India (Krahe, Scheinberger-Olwig, & Bieneck, 2003; Waldner, Vaden-Goad, & Sikka, 1999) provide accounts of women's sexual aggression outside U.S.. The present study is first report of women's sexual aggression gathered from a sample of women in Russian Federation. Cultural norms and stereotypes have typically cast women as sexually passive (Campbell, 1999; Byers, 1996) and even resistant to sexual behavior and pleasure (Waldner, et al., 1999). The study of women's sexual aggression runs counterintuitive to these cultural norms and expectations and challenges some basic assumptions about nature of women's sexuality (Denov, 2003; Green, 1999). Despite these cultural expectations, several authors have reported on women's sexually aggressive behaviors (Anderson & Melson, 2002; Spitzberg, 1999). It has been argued that most commonly studied variables used to explain women's heterosexual aggression (e.g., past sexual abuse, stereotypical beliefs about sexuality) are not sufficient to explain majority of variance in this behavior and that other behavioral, cultural, and contextual variables need more scrutiny (Anderson, Kontos, Tanigoshi, & Struckman-Johnson, 2005; Anderson & Savage, 2005) Women's Sexual Aggression The very definition of sexual aggression is controversial, even when analyzing men's behavior. The most widely used or adapted survey to assess men's heterosexual aggression was first introduced by Koss and Oros in 1982. The sexual experiences survey (SES) was developed to reveal hidden cases of rape (Koss & Oros, 1982) and as they stated, the continuum of sexual aggression would range from intercourse achieved through verbal coercion and threatened force to intercourse achieved against consent through use of physical force (rape) (p. 455). Researchers who use Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), (Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss, Gidycz, W Ross & Allgeier, 1996). According to Ross and Allgeier, the SES may be plagued by inaccurate psychometric citations ... and potentially questionable face validity (p. 1590). For example, as O'Sullivan explains, SES item: Have you ever had intercourse with a woman when she didn't really want to because she felt pressured by your continual arguments? was interpreted by male respondents on a continuum from verbally persuading a woman, using threats to obtain sex to using physical force to obtain sex from a woman (p. 7). As Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, and Turner (1999) explain, one of limitations of her research is that SES has been criticized for its lack of clarity. Further they state: insufficient information exists regarding extent to which men and women mean same thing when they respond 'yes' or 'no' to these items (p. 306). The gender-neutral version of SES faces similar issues. One question reads, In past year, have you been in a situation where your partner became so sexually aroused that you felt it was useless to stop them even though you DID NOT want to have sexual intercourse? (p. 304) Although Larimer's, et al. (1999) questions are theoretically gender-neutral, only terms that had been altered are respondent's or perpetrator's gender. For example, instead of using he or she, Larimer, et al. …
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".