MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324358717 · doi:10.1080/10926771.2023.2189040

The Importance of Context: Describing the Who, Where, and How of Technology-Facilitated Sexual Harassment

2023· article· en· W4324358717 on OpenAlex
Casey Oliver, Erika Puiras, Shayna Cummings, Dwight Mazmanian

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentContext (archaeology)Social mediaPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social psychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the pervasive problems that women historically faced in person, such as sexual harassment, can now follow them everywhere through technology. The purpose of this study was to address contextual gaps in the literature about women’s experiences of technology-facilitated sexual harassment (TFSH). Specifically, information about perpetrator and platform types, location, percentage of time experienced, and COVID-19 experiences were captured. Canadian women (N = 481) were recruited through a course credit system and online advertisements. Results indicated the public, private, and chronic nature of TFSH. Furthermore, social media and dating applications were identified as commonly occurring places for TFSH, with strangers and acquaintances often being reported as perpetrators. This research may help to inform future research and prevention strategies for TFSH.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.261 · 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