Concurrent Session, The Military: Critical First Year College Experience Learning Community Seminar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several government-sponsored victimization surveys have found women's fear of crime to be much higher than that of men even though their probability of being victimized is much lower than men's. On the basis of these results, several criminologists contend that women's fear is subjectively based. However, government surveys have not adequately examined the consequences of the physical, sexual, and psychological abuse of women by male intimates. Feminist researchers contend that these assaults greatly contribute to a generalized fear of crime that is objectively based. Using data from a national survey on female abuse in Canadian college/university dating relationships, this study tested and failed to support the feminist hypothesis that violence by male intimates results in higher levels of fear. However, an examination of an ex post facto hypothesis assessing the relationship between fear in private places (the home) and abuse by male dating partners found positive correlations. Women who had been psychologically or sexually victimized by male dating partners felt more insecure in their own homes than other women. These increased feelings of fear were linked to experiences of sexual coercion, unwanted sexual touching, psychological abuse, and sexual abuse. The results suggest that women reassess their feelings of fear when victimized by male intimates. In particular, places generally viewed as safe by women, their own homes, are seen as more threatening than they had been in the past.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.330 | 0.077 |
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".