Vulnerability/prevention: Considering the needs of disabled and gay athletes in the context of sexual harassment and abuse
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
Abstract We explore the role of programs for prevention for sexual harassment and abuse in sport in Canada, specifically in the Province of Quebec, by first describing the international sport context of sexual harassment and abuse and then considering the needs of disabled and gay athletes. We have found that there is little scientific literature on sexual harassment and abuse that focuses on the vulnerabilities of, or specific prevention measures for, disabled or LGBT athletes. Such gaps in the literature make it difficult to evaluate the full effectiveness of sexual harassment and abuse intervention programs. To highlight this issue, we describe some of the prevention programs in use in Canada, specifically in the Province of Quebec, and locate program gaps around athletes identified as vulnerable in both the international and Canadian contexts. Finally, we conclude by pressing the need for research and policy advocacy to close the prevention program gaps and to ensure protection is offered to all athletes, not just “mainstream” athletes
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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