MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214817857 · doi:10.46692/9781447307327.004

Does gender matter in violence prevention programmes?

2014· other· en· W4214817857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leslie M. Tutty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All children, young people and adults can be the targets of violence, the most likely perpetrators being family members, intimate partners or acquaintances. No one deserves such abuse and we must continue to explore ways to prevent all violence. Nonetheless, it is critical to acknowledge that girls and women are the primary targets of many forms of abuse, including child sexual abuse, dating violence, intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment (Heise et al, 2002). Such forms of violence are defined as ‘gender-based’, occurring in private (as in abuse in families and intimate relationships) and public spheres (school, community). What causes gender-based violence? While several authors have adopted a multi-levelled, ecological view of the etiology of such violence (Heise et al, 2002), one significant cause within this is a power imbalance related to male authority and privilege (Morrison et al, 2007). Gender-based violence is particularly evident when societal attitudes, behaviours and institutions uphold traditional male power. The fear of violence experienced by many women and girls tends only to reinforce the gender inequality in society; reinforcing a sense of powerlessness and limiting the effective functioning of girls and young women in both private and public realms (Berman et al , 2002). School-based violence prevention programmes are one important way to inform, address and provide strategies to intervene so that violence either does not occur or its effects are minimised. Developed in the past 30 years, a proliferation of prevention programmes address school violence, bullying, sexual abuse, dating violence, discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault and the sexual exploitation of children and young people (Tutty et al, 2005). Drawing on the Canadian experience, this chapter explores the role and importance of a gendered framework in preventing violence against women and girls. In so doing it presents sections on school-based programmes addressing the prevention of child sexual abuse, bullying, sexual harassment, dating violence and, briefly, sexual assault, examining the gendered aspects of each. Although many programmes cite such gendered violence as a core principle, the extent to which this is explicit in the programme materials varies. The chapter discusses some of the challenges of adopting a gendered approach and strategies to address this in gaining entry to the school system. One approach to highlight the gendered nature of intimate violence is administering the programme or parts of the programme in separate gender groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.002

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207