Less exposed, more vulnerable? Understanding the sexual victimization of women with disabilities under the lens of victimological theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the sexual victimization process of individuals with disabilities using the interactional victimology theoretical framework. Specifically, we compare the victimological indicators of four different situations: victims were not disabled, victims were physically disabled, victims were psychologically disabled, and finally, victims were both physically and psychologically disabled. The sample used in this study consists of 1,077 cases of extrafamilial sexual assaults involving adult victims in France. Bivariate and multivariate analyses are performed to examine the differences between cases where victims were not disabled ( n = 500), victims were physically disabled ( n = 243), victims were psychologically disabled ( n = 276), and victims were both physically and psychologically disabled ( n = 58). Findings show that disability is a factor increasing the severity of sexual violence and that the type of disability affects the parameters of the victimization process. Moreover, results show that sexual victimization of persons with disabilities is more likely due to their vulnerability than to their exposure to risks. Both theoretical and practical implications related to the vulnerability concept 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".