Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a model of vindictive rape based on common mechanisms for maintaining cooperation among humans, namely altruistic (or costly) punishment, sex role expectations, and retributive (“eye for an eye”) justice. Vindictive rapes are characterized by high level of victim harm without explicit sadistic sexual interests. They are also distinguished from angry, reactive sexual aggression in response to personal insult or threats. In this model, vindictive rape is considered a form of retributive justice in which the perpetrator punishes the female victim for perceived transgressions against sexual norms. None of the specific psychological mechanisms are intrinsically problematic. Nevertheless, individuals who have committed vindictive rapes would still be expected to have risk-relevant schema worthy of interventions. For such individuals, the primary treatment targets would be loosening rigid sexual norm expectations for women, increasing confidence in conventional methods of maintaining social order, and decreasing willingness to hurt others at the cost of hurting oneself. A 15-item Vindictive Rape Attitude Questionnaire is presented in order to facilitate further research on the topic.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".