Emancipatory Sexuality Education and Sexual Assault Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined whether adding emancipatory sexuality education, which encourages the exploration of women’s own sexual values and desires, to a sexual assault resistance program would improve women’s resistance to sexual assault by known men. The participants were 214 first-year university students. A randomized experimental design evaluated the effectiveness of a basic and sexuality enhanced version of a sexual assault resistance program against a no-program control. Both programs, compared to the control group, increased women’s perception of their own risk, their confidence that they could defend themselves if attacked, and their use of more effective methods of self-defense in hypothetical situations of acquaintance sexual assault. Effects were maintained from 3 to 6 months after program completion. No significant reductions in completed sexual assault were found. The sexuality enhanced program was superior in several areas, particularly risk detection and initiation of sexual activity, which may be important to women’s integration of the program’s content to their lives. Future research will need to strengthen and continue to evaluate the promising programs for women which now exist. Until effective programming for men on campus is developed and implemented widely, our best hope to improve the health and safety of female students lays in comprehensive women-only multi-unit sexual assault resistance education.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".