From private to public: Analyzing the dynamics of nonconsensual sexts in the digital age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research has found that gender is central to both consensually sending and receiving sexts and nonconsensual sharing. This research often spotlights girls as being responsible and explains that boys’ roles as perpetrators in these interactions are made invisible. We aimed to investigate the feelings, harms, responses, and dynamics of nonconsensual sexting in a sample of Canadian adolescents. Exploratory surveys were administered to adolescents (eleven to nineteen years) who had experienced (n = 73) or engaged (n = 40) in the nonconsensual dissemination of sexts. In the experienced sample, a majority had negative feelings; males tended to have fewer negative feelings. Most told someone outside of school, which females were more likely to find helpful. There was a statistically significant relationship in the engaged sample, with a higher proportion of males than females reporting positive feelings and/or no harm. Gender dynamics and societal norms influence how adolescents respond to sexting experiences, emphasizing the need for education and prevention strategies.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".