MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1540374117

Preliminary Examination of Safety Issues on a University Campus: Personal Safety Practices, Beliefs & Attitudes of Female Faculty & Staff.

2007· article· en· W1540374117 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege student journal · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHarassmentSignagePsychologyOccupational safety and healthMedical educationPreparednessPersonal protective equipmentExploratory researchMedicineSocial psychologyBusinessSociologyManagement
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

University and college campuses are not immune to acts of violence. Unfortunately there is limited information regarding violence in the academic setting among women employees. As such, the purpose of this exploratory research was to examine issues that female faculty and staff members have about safety on and around campus, including concerns about safety, personal safety precautions, and issues involving victimization. Two hundred and twenty-nine female faculty and staff, employed by a university in Central Ontario Canada, completed a questionnaire sent via inter-campus mail. Awareness of services on campus that dealt with issues concerning safety was high, although utilization of such services was relatively low, with the exception of security and health services. Faculty and staff reported taking precautions which included locking car doors when alone, planning a route with safety in mind, carrying keys in a defensive manner, checking back seats of car for intruders prior to entry into the car, to name a few. Participants were dissatisfied with the following safety features on campus: lighting, signage and the availability of emergency phones. Further many reported belonging to a group on campus that was more victimized than others, namely being female. More faculty members than staff members, reported being victimized on campus, although both groups reported similar types of victimization (e.g., unwanted sexually touching and various forms of harassment). Safety is integral to protecting the human rights and maintaining the health status of individuals. As such, steps toward making campuses safe havens for students, staff, faculty and administration should be considered a priority. INTRODUCTION Issues that threaten safety have negative consequences for health and well-being, such physical and emotional trauma, erosion of self-esteem and lack of concentration. According to Statistics Canada (2000), results from the General Social Survey found that one in every four Canadians reported being a victim of at least one crime, while the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted in 2003 in the United States revealed that 24 million crimes (77% property crimes; 22% violent crimes; 1% personal thefts) occurred among individuals 12 years of age and older (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). Women are more likely to be the victims of sexual assault and stalking than men (see, for example, Statistics Canada, 2000; U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). Also of significance is the fact that women are more fearful for their safety in circumstances such waiting for a bus alone after dark (64%) and walking alone at night (18%) (Statistics Canada, 2000). Unfortunately, campuses are not immune to acts of violence; date rape, physical assault, stalking, abuse and harassment are all issues that occur on campuses today, often with women the victims. In fact, females are more fearful for their personal safety within the university-setting than their male-counterparts (Klodawsky & Lundy, 1994). Gruber (1992) contends that incidences of harassment are more prevalent in environments dominated by males, like the academic setting (see also, Bagilhole & Woodward, 1995), while Kanter (1977) reports that organizations comprised of small minorities of women increase the likelihood of women being victims of seclusion and marginalization. Further, three factors facilitate the occurrence of sexual harassment within university settings: (1) the dearth of women in positions of power; (2) the lack of accountability of faculty members; and (3) the relative autonomy of academics (Dzeich & Weiner, 1984) (see also, Zappert, 1996). Violence against the female gender is not only an issue of human rights, but also constitutes a major health issue (World Health Organization, 1997). It occurs in every culture and society (Hyman, Gurage, Stewart & Ahmad, 2000; World Health Organization, 1997), and is thought by some to operate as a means to maintain and reinforce women's subordination (World Health Organization, 1997). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,822

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,366
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle