MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112819683 · doi:10.1177/0886260520978190

Unfounded Sexual Assault: Women’s Experiences of Not Being Believed by the Police

2020· article· en· W3112819683 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual assaultLaw enforcementCriminal justiceSuicide preventionPoison controlPsychologySexual violenceCriminologyQualitative researchMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergencyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One in four women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. Although less than 5% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, one in five cases reported to police are deemed baseless (by police) and therefore coded as "unfounded." Police officers are in a unique position to act as gatekeepers for justice in sexual assault cases, given their responsibility to investigate sexual assault reports. However, high rates of unfounded sexual assaults reveal that dismissing sexual violence has become common practice amongst the police. Much of the research on unfounded sexual assault is based on police perceptions of the sexual assault, as indicated in police reports. Women's perspectives about their experiences with police are not represented in research. This qualitative study explored women's experiences when their sexual assault report was disbelieved by the police. Data collection included open-ended and semi-structured interviews with 23 sexual assault survivors. Interviews covered four areas including the sexual assault, the experience with the police, the experience of not being believed, and the impact on their health and well-being. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and entered into NVIVO for analysis. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's analytic method, resulting in the identification of four themes, including, (a) vulnerability, (b) drug and alcohol use during the assault, (c) police insensitivity, and (d) police process. The women in this study who experienced a sexual assault and reported the assault to police were hopeful that police would help them and justice would be served. Instead, these women were faced with insensitivity, blaming questions, lack of investigation, and lack of follow-up from the police, all of which contributed to not being believed by the institutions designed to protect them. The findings from this research demonstrate that police officers must gain a deeper understanding of trauma and sensitive communication with survivors of sexual assault.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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