MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285731949 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2022.2099495

Social Reactions to Disclosure of Sexual Violence in Adulthood and Women’s Sexuality: The Mediating Role of Shame and Guilt

2022· article· en· W4285731949 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie-Chloé Nolin, Beáta Bőthe, Sophie Bergeron, Natacha Godbout, Marie‐Ève Daspe, Marie‐Pier Vaillancourt‐Morel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMinistère de l'Éducation et de l'Enseignement supérieurUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsShameHuman sexualityPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySexual violenceSocial psychologyCriminologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the mediating role of emotions related to sexual violence in adulthood in the associations between social reactions to sexual violence disclosure and sexual outcomes. Self-reported data were collected from 324 women reporting sexual violence and path analyses were conducted among the 264 women (81.5%) who disclosed their most recent sexual violence experience. Results showed that emotional support was associated with higher sexual satisfaction. Victim blame was associated with greater guilt related to the sexual violence, which, in turn, was associated with higher sexual compulsivity. Stigmatization was associated with greater shame related to the sexual violence, which, in turn, was associated with higher sexual distress and avoidance, and lower sexual satisfaction and function. Our findings highlight the importance of social reactions to sexual violence disclosure in women's sexuality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sex & Marital TherapySame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207