CHANGES OVER TIME IN THE PRACTICE OF SELF-DEFENSE AMONG YOUNG MEN IN CANADA: AN EXAMINATION OF INSECURITY AND UFC HYPOTHESES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using multiple waves of data (1999,2004, 2009) from the General Social Survey (GSS) on victimization, the following study analyzes a number of factors thought to be influential in the practice of self-defense among young Canadian men (N=9,049) over time. Two perspectives are examined: 1) The practice of self-defense is related to feelings of insecurity among young men, and is a rational, adaptive response to perceived or actual dangerous environmental threats; 2) In addition to the effects of insecurity, the practice of self-defense should increase over time as a result of the mainstream popularity of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and mixed martial arts, and may be the result of a potential “UFC effect”.\nResults indicate a strong, positive relationship between measures of insecurity (e.g., prior experience of violent victimization) and the likelihood of practicing self-defense, while evidence in support of the UFC hypothesis is, for the most part, absent. However, supplementary analyses lend partial support for the presence of such an effect, though it is less than definitive and only applies to young men of lower income. The implications of these findings are presented and discussed from both a theoretical and policy-oriented perspective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".