MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108192121 · doi:10.1080/14680777.2020.1850501

Perception of sexual violence in Tamil movies by Malaysian Indian viewers

2020· article· en· W3108192121 on OpenAlexaff
Premalatha Karupiah, Sundramoorthy Pathmanathan, Bala Raju Nikku

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Media Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Cinema and Culture
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersUniversiti Sains Malaysia
KeywordsTamilSexual violencePsychologyCourtshipComedyFemininityPerceptionMythologyGender studiesSocial psychologyCriminologySociologyLiteratureArtPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored how Malaysian Indian viewers read and perceived the portrayal of sexual violence in Tamil movies produced in India. Sixty youths were selected, using a purposive sampling method, to participate in focus group discussions. The discussions were transcribed and analysed for common themes related to their reading of sexual violence in Tamil movies. Four main themes were identified in this study: forms of sexual violence; blurring lines between sexual violence and pre-marital sex; stalking; and rape comedy. Participants clearly identified rape as a form of sexual violence but were more cautious when identifying other forms of sexual violence especially when it was portrayed as part of courtship. Participants were divided in their understanding of rape as part of a comedy scene. Generally, participants accepted the way sexual violence was portrayed in the movies without overtly challenging the meaning of these portrayals. The portrayal of sexual violence and the reading of it by viewers followed traditional notions of femininity and rape myths in their society.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminist Media StudiesSame topicSouth Asian Cinema and CultureFrench-language works237,207