Rape Myth Acceptance in the Digital Age: The Effects of Using Dating Apps and the Moderation Role of Gender
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
Rape myth acceptance (RMA) is a crucial predictor of rape proclivity. It has been extensively analyzed for its gender differences to aid in designing clinical interventions and health programs. Although it is well known that males generally exhibit higher levels of RMA than females, the impact of digital devices, the Internet, and dating apps on RMA and how this impact differs between genders remain understudied. This study addresses these gaps by examining a sample of 647 Chinese‐speaking college students in Canada. The findings indicate that the use of dating apps is positively associated with higher RMA; male students exhibited greater RMA levels than female students; and gender moderates the impact of dating app usage, with a more elevated effect on RMA observed in male students compared to female students. The study’s limitations are discussed, including the specificity of the sample (Chinese college students in Canada) and caution against generalizing to broader populations, along with the research and policy implications of the study.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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