“That was terrifying!”: When 2SLGBTQQ+ individuals and rural women experiencing intimate partner violence are stalked
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Stalking reflects a lesser-studied form of intimate partner violence (IPV; e.g., physical abuse) that may occur pre- and postseparation between two or more partners, incurring lifelong pervasive health impacts on those involved. Intersectionality theory elucidates how Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual (2SLGBTQQIA+) individuals' and rural women's identities are oppressed by society, thus subjecting them to unique IPV experiences. Therefore, this study aims to explore how stalking manifests among 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals and women living rurally with lived experiences, both of which are underrepresented groups in current stalking literature. Methods We used secondary data from two IPV studies conducted among 2SLGBTQQ+ (no intersex or asexual participants) individuals and rural women (n = 29). We interviewed 2SLGBTQQ+ (n = 18) and rural women (n = 11) who resided in Alberta, Canada and experienced IPV via semi-structured, qualitative approaches. A thematic analysis was guided by intersectionality theory to analyze the data, applying inductive and semantic approaches. Findings Of the 29 participants, 15 were stalked by their abusive partners and 9 reported on the negative impacts of being stalked. Rural women and 2SLGBTQQ+ individuals were mainly stalked via physical forms of stalking and cyberstalking, respectively. We describe other forms of stalking and the ineffectiveness of legal systems in those seeking support for stalking. The impacts of stalking (e.g., hypervigilance) were so profound that the feeling of being stalked persisted, which we termed phantom stalking. Significance 2SLGBTQQ+ individuals predominantly experienced stalking through technology and rural women experienced stalking in more public or physical forms, which stemmed from intersections with community and geographical factors, respectively. We posit the notion of “phantom stalking” and discuss and differentiate it from other psychiatric diagnoses. Additionally, we provide important recommendations related to legislation, education, safety, and research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".