Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence against women in rural and remote areas has many determinants and one of the most significant ones is ‘male peer support’. The theory arose in Canada but has international applications, based on a review of the literature by DeKeseredy. It is attachments to male peers and the resources that these men provide that perpetuate and legitimate both the online and offline victimization of women. Nearly 35 years of rigorous quantitative and qualitative empirical work shows that male peer group dynamics that encourage and rationalize various types of abuse against women are also prevalent in metropolitan locales. Likewise, male peer support is multidimensional. Consider that research consistently identifies these four variants of male peer support: • routine activities with other men , such as playing sports or going to bars, pubs or nightclubs; • informational support , which refers to the guidance and advice that influence men to assault their current or former intimate female partners; • attachments to male peers who have abused their current or former intimate female partners; and • peer pressure to have sex. As DeKeseredy and Schwartz note, in 1988 the very first male peer support model of woman abuse was developed and tested. It is heavily informed by ‘social support theory’. Social support theory is generally used to explain the role of social support in health maintenance and disease prevention. However, it was reconceptualized to explain violence against women. This theory argues that many men experience various types of stress in university/college dating relationships, ranging from sexual problems to challenges to their perceived male authority. Some men try to deal with these problems themselves, whilst others turn to their male friends for advice, guidance and various other kinds of social support. The resources provided by these peers may incite and justify woman abuse under certain conditions. Furthermore, male peer support can influence men to victimize their dating partners regardless of stress. Since 1988, seven more male peer support models have been developed (see DeKeseredy and colleagues in the suggested readings), with two of them constructed in an attempt to explain separation/ divorce sexual assault in rural communities.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".