MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281552329 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/w6z7s

Not So Random Acts of Violence: Shared Social-Ecological Features of Violence Against Women and School Shootings

2022· preprint· en· W4281552329 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole L. Johnson, Natania S. Lipp, Marli Corbett-Hone

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)CriminologyIntervention (counseling)Social ecological modelSocial ecologySexual violenceMasculinityPolitical scienceGeographyPsychologyEcologyGender studiesSociologyPsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examines an understudied potential warning sign of school shootings: violence against women (VAW). Utilizing the social-ecological model of violence prevention, we employed directed content analysis to determine the prevalence of acts and social-ecological features of VAW among profiles of 59 boys/men who perpetrated school shootings between 1966 and 2018. The majority of shootings profiled occurred in the United States (47, 79.7%), followed by Canada (5, 8.5%), Finland (2, 3.4%), Germany (2, 3.4%), Brazil (1, 1.7%), Scotland (1, 1.7%), and Ukraine (1, 1.7%). Results demonstrated a strong presence of VAW among profiled school shooters, with almost 70% perpetrating VAW and the identification of frequent features of VAW that cut across the social-ecological levels, most notably (the enactment of and failure to meet expectations of) hegemonic masculinity and normalization of violence. Implications for research and intervention are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→