MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6943830552 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/kc2t5

#MeToo and Canadian University Students

2022· other· en· W6943830552 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGender, Feminism, and Media
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHarassmentHuman sexualitySexual violenceCourtshipPoliticsPraisePolice brutalityCriticism

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

•#MeToo can be described succinctly as an online social movement against sexual harassment and sexual violence. •#MeToo emerged with significant “viral force” in mid-October of 2017 (Tambe, 2018, p. 197). Ostensibly, #MeToo arose in response to public revelations regarding persistent patterns of sexual harassment and sexual assault against female workers within the U. S. media and entertainment industries. Over the days, weeks, and months that followed, the apparent reach, scope, meaning, and impact of #MeToo developed rapidly; #MeToo, as a social movement, continues to evolve. •The virality of #MeToo, at least in part, likely reflected its close connection to celebrity culture (Tambe, 2018). •Whilst #MeToo arose within a particular social, historical, and political context, it reflects a well-established tradition of online sexual activism (e.g., Keller, Mendes, & Ringrose, 2018; Martsenyuk & Phillips, 2020; PettyJohn et al., 2019). •#MeToo has been the focus of both high praise and sharp “backlash.” Proponents of #MeToo suggest that the movement has cast a powerful spotlight on sexual violence – in particular, the breadth, complexity, and ubiquity thereof. Some have suggested further that #MeToo has provided a transformative online “public speak-out” for survivors of sexual violence (i.e., a virtual space for disclosure, support, solidarity, empathy, and empowerment among survivors). Alternatively, criticism of #MeToo has included the following: that the movement likely promotes “false allegations” of sexual harassment and sexual assault, that it undermines fairness and due process for those persons accused of sexual misconduct, that it has a negative impact on contemporary courtship behaviours, that it adversely impacts sex/gender relations (both in the workplace and more broadly), and that it variously undermines the status of women and girls. •Some have suggested that #MeToo is far more inclusive of certain groups than of others. Specifically, it has been argued that #MeToo disproportionately emphasizes the experiences of privileged, relatively affluent, white, cis-gendered women (e.g., Evans, 2018; Leung & William, 2019; Tambe, 2018; Zarkov & David, 2018). Some have suggested that Persons of Colour, transgendered individuals, and other diverse persons are underrepresented (if not excluded entirely) by the #MeToo movement (e.g., Hemmings, 2018; Johnson III & Renderos, 2020; Lee, 2018). Of those groups said to be underrepresented or excluded by the #MeToo movement, many are known to be impacted disproportionately by sexual violence (e.g., Burcycka, 2019; Cantor, 2015; Rotenberg, 2017; Wincentak et al., 2017). •The present study seeks to examine if, in what form, and to what impact #MeToo has been taken up by Canadian undergraduate university students. Previous research suggests that university students are at elevated risk to experience sexual violence (e.g., Muehlenhard et al., 2015; Bergeron, Goyer, Hébert, &Ricci, 2019). Study data are currently being collecting through the administration of an anonymous online survey instrument; the survey instrument is being administered to university undergraduate students at both campuses of a large Canadian university (Campus 1 and Campus 2). These data are being collected within the context of a large-scale study examining the prevalence of unwelcome/unwanted sexual experiences among Canadian undergraduate university students. •Two previous published studies have attempted to examine how Canadian undergraduate university students construct/conceptualize #MeToo (Carey et al., 2022; Williamson et al., 2020). Both of these studies relied on a face-to-face focus groups design. These previous studies were marked by a number of strengths and weaknesses. The present study will be the first to examine how Canadian undergraduate university students construct/conceptualize #MeToo using an anonymous online survey – this design offers a number of distinct advantages over the previous studies. This study will be the first to explore directly the degree to which (if at all) Canadian undergraduate university students consider themselves to be familiar with #MeToo. This study will be the first to explore directly if and how Canadian undergraduate university students perceive that #MeToo has impacted their personal dating, romantic, and sexual behaviour. This study’s analytic strategy will rely on a combination of quantitative content analysis (QCA), parametric statistical analyses, and non-parametric statistical analyses.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,159
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0050,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0200,000

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 Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Science FrameworkMême sujetGender, Feminism, and MediaTravaux en français237 207