The global prevalence of sexual assault: A systematic review of international research since 2010.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We present a review of peer-reviewed English-language studies conducted outside the United States and Canada on the prevalence of sexual assault victimization in adolescence and adulthood published since 2010. METHOD: A systematic literature search yielded 32 articles reporting on 45 studies from 29 countries. Studies that only provided prevalence estimates for sexual assault in intimate relationships or did not present separate rates for men and women were excluded. All studies were coded by two coders, and a risk of bias score was calculated for each study. Both past-year and prevalence rates covering longer periods were extracted. RESULTS: =6 each). One study came from the Middle East and no studies were found from Oceania. Across the 22 studies that reported past-year prevalence rates, figures ranged from 0% to 59.2% for women, 0.3% to 55.5% for men, and 1.5% to 18.2% for LGBT samples. The average risk of bias score was 5.7 out of 10. Studies varied widely in methodology. CONCLUSION: Despite regional variation, most studies indicate that sexual assault is widespread. More sustained, systematic, and coordinated research efforts are needed to gauge the scale of sexual assault in different parts of the world and to develop prevention measures.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it