College Students’ Perceptions of the Rates of Various Types of Sexual Violence and the Barriers to Reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the perceived campus, peer, and personal rates of four types of sexual violence (sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, nonforcible sex offense, and forcible sex offense) with the documented rates of these same incidents, based on official campus statistics and U.S. census data on forcible rape. Additionally, the barriers to reporting sexual violence among college students were examined. I hypothesized that the results of this study would reveal a pattern of underreporting on campus for all four types of sexual violence. A total of 807 undergraduate respondents (440 females, 204 males, and 5 individuals that identified as transgender or “other”) completed (n = 643) or partially completed (n = 164) a confidential online survey. The results of the study indicated that each form of sexual violence was significantly underreported on campus when compared to the perceived rates of the participants. Furthermore, female students reported a higher number of salient barriers to reporting sexual violence and also rated each of the 15 barriers examined in this study higher than men. Key implications of theses findings and recommendations for future research are discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".