Preliminary Examination of Safety Issues on a University Campus: Personal Safety Practices, Beliefs & Attitudes of Female Faculty & Staff.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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). …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it