Discourses Around Male IPV Related Systemic Biases on Reddit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date research on intimate partner violence (IPV) has focused on the experience of females. The limited studies on male IPV survivors have shown that they are less likely to disclose their IPV experiences. Systemic biases may marginalize and silence male IPV survivors.The current study sought to explore the discourse around perceived systemic biases that may be present for male IPV survivors.A widely used social networking site (http://www.reddit.com/) was scraped for submissions relating to male IPV. Search was carried out using three keywords resulting in 917 submissions, out of which 82 met inclusion criteria. Submissions were included in final analysis if they consisted of more than half a page of data pertaining to male IPV. Thematic content analysis was utilized to analyze the data.Responses reflect common experiences with participants identifying multiple sources of perceived systemic biases: (1) social norms, (2) legal system, (3) social services, (4) media, and (5) government.The sources of potential support for male IPV survivors exhibit substantial pervasive biases against males as victims of IPV. Findings from current study can inform policies across multiple systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".