MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1540374117

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

2007· article· en· W1540374117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paula C. Fletcher, Pamela J. Bryden

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege student journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentSignagePsychologyOccupational safety and healthMedical educationPreparednessPersonal protective equipmentExploratory researchMedicineSocial psychologyBusinessSociologyManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege student journalSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207