The missing and imagined perpetrator in rape prevention efforts
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
In response to unceasing rates of sexual assault, and the failure of statutory interventions to reduce the prevalence of sexual violence, several prevention strategies have emerged.Over the past fifty years, initiatives have included awareness raising campaigns, provision of self-defence training, promotion of rape alarms, and education-based efforts in the form of bystander intervention and consent training workshops aimed at encouraging prosocial action to reduce sexual violence.More recently, a striking array of technologies has emerged claiming the capacity to prevent or mitigate the risk of sexual violence including apps that harness the communication functions of smart technology and a variety of 'wearables' designed to protect the body from assault or repel a would-be assailant.In this paper we analyse these prevention initiatives in the modern period, demonstrating that what is striking about the majority is the relative absence of the perpetrator in both design and endorsement.Where an assailant is alluded to, this 'imagined perpetrator' tends to reflect stereotypical constructions of how sexual violence occurs and who commits it.The consequence of such representations is that many prevention efforts place responsibility onto potential victims to protect themselves, contributing further to widespread misunderstandings about the realities of rape and rapists.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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