MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7006581750

Victim Blaming Study

2021· other· en· W7006581750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlameFeelingJust-world hypothesisDomestic violenceSet (abstract data type)DerogationAttribution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the case of domestic violence and sexual abuse, previous studies have linked victim-blaming with victim's feelings of shame, which increases the risk of developing symptoms of depression or PTSD (Bhuptani et al., 2011; Kennedy & Prock, 2016). Other studies have also shown that the more an individual believes in a just world (that the world is fair and that people get what they deserve), the more likely they are to blame victims of domestic or sexual violence instead of the perpetrator (Valor-Segura, Exposito, & Moya, 2011). Our study is a replication of a study completed in Spain in 2011. Valor-Segura, Exposito, & Moya (2011) investigated the influence of beliefs in sexism and beliefs in a just world on judgments of four different situations of domestic violence. Particularly, the study measured how these beliefs across different situations of domestic violence (situations with different causes) may influence the participant to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator. Our replication of Valor-Segura, Exposito, & Moya’s (2011) study follows a similar method. The participants will read a transcript of a call to a help-line where a woman recounts her recent experience of domestic violence. The participants will then be asked a short number of questions to measure whether or not they blame the victim or the perpetrator. Lastly, we will be measuring individuals' belief in a just-world as well as their level of hostile and benevolent sexism through another set of short questionnaires. The main difference in our replication will be that instead of presenting four different scenarios of domestic violence, we will only be presenting one, therefore we will not be looking at how the cause of the domestic violence situation affects victim-blaming. Additionally, our study will be using a sample of adult participants from Canada. We predict that participants holding greater just world-beliefs and hostile sexist beliefs will present a greater degree of victim blaming. We also predict that male participants will blame the victim more than participants who are female (or identify as another gender). Both predictions are informed by Valor-Segura, Exposito, and Moya’s (2011) results. In short, we predict that the original study will be generalizable to a Canadian population. Overall, our study seeks to gain a better understanding of the ideologies associated with victim-blaming. Additionally, it aims to increase the reliability of the original study’s results and see if the original study’s results can be generalizable to a Canadian population and to 2021.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→Same topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species→French-language works237,207→