Understanding the Sexual Victimization of Child and Elder Victims under the Lens of Interactional Victimology: A Routine Activities Theory Approach
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
This study aims to further our understanding of sexual victimization using the routine activities theory (RAT) framework. Specifically, this study compared offenders’ motivations as well as victims’ vulnerability, inertia, gratifiability, and accessibility in elder, child, and younger adult victims. The sample used in this study consists of 931 cases of extrafamilial sexual assaults that occurred in France. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine the differences between the cases involving child (n = 193), adult (n = 500), and elder victims (n = 238). First, findings indicate that offenders do not present different motivations depending on the type of victim. Second, analyses suggest that child and elder victims presented similar patterns of suitability in comparison to adult victims. Finally, results show that for both child and elder victims, accessibility represents a major obstacle but manifested differently. Theoretical and practical implications as well as directions for future research 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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