“Punched in the Balls”: Male Intimate Partner Violence Disclosures and Replies on Reddit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on male intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors is limited. The sparse research on male IPV disclosure suggest males receive more negative and less helpful responses from potential sources of formal or informal support. Males may seek support on social networking sites (SNSs), hence, it is important to understand their emerging experiences of virtual disclosures. This study examined the nature and content of responses to IPV disclosures by male IPV survivors on a popular SNS (reddit.com). Search of Reddit submissions related to male IPV were carried out using three IPV related keywords for the calendar month of February 2019, resulting in 917 submissions. Twelve submissions that focused on male IPV disclosure were examined in detail. The 12 submissions were analyzed using quantitative content analysis while associated comments ( n = 569) were analyzed using qualitative approach. Two-thirds of the disclosures (8/12) were of personal IPV experiences. All disclosure narratives identified the sex of perpetrator, most stated the types of abuse (7/12), and some revealed the outcomes of past disclosures (4/12). Six major themes were developed through qualitative analysis of the associated comments: (1) Informational Support, (2) Nurturant Support, (3) Tangible Aid, (4) Negative Response (5) Self-Defence, and (6) Reciprocal Disclosure. Overall, males experienced a majority of supportive responses to IPV disclosures and some negative responses including criticism and minimizing the abuse. Males take risks in disclosure of IPV in person and online.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".