MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392916927 · doi:10.1080/15564886.2024.2329107

Disclosure Decisions and Help-Seeking Experiences Amongst Victim-Survivors of Non-Consensual Intimate Image Distribution

2024· article· en· W4392916927 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictims & Offenders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsPsychologyDistribution (mathematics)Human factors and ergonomicsSocial psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlCriminologyClinical psychologyMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The non-consensual dissemination of intimate images (NCII) is a form of technology-facilitated, image-based sexual abuse. Despite causing significant harm, research indicates a reluctance to seek support. Thus, this study aimed to develop practitioner recommendations for improving support accessibility by exploring NCII victim-survivors’ disclosure decisions and experiences of accessing support. Thematic Analysis of 31 UK adult victim-survivor interviews revealed informal support was favored, although some did not disclose to anyone. Disclosure responses ranged from supportive to judgmental. Barriers to help-seeking included stigma and perceiving formal support services as inaccessible. Recommendations for improving formal support accessibility such as service visibility, education and inclusive practices 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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.286 · 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