Constructing victims: The gendering of domestic violence in the print media.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this project is to explore gender constructions of domestic violence in Ontario newsprint media in the decade of the 1990s, and to examine the extent to which the victimization of male partners by female partners is under-represented during this time period, rendering male victims "invisible". Based on content analysis of articles from the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun, this thesis argues that social constructions of gender shape portrayals of domestic violence victimization in the print media. The thesis finds no support in the data, however, for the hypothesis that the print media under-represents male domestic violence victims, since rates of reported male and female victimization correspond roughly with the gender distribution of domestic violence victimization in police reports, as captured in Department of Justice statistics. On the other hand, there is support for the hypothesis that constructions of domestic violence are "gendered", though support for this hypothesis is mixed and contradictory. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 42-03, page: 0840. Adviser: Ruth Mann. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2003.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".