Enhancing Care and Advocacy for Sexual Assault Survivors on Canadian Campuses
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
Recent media coverage of the rape chant at Saint Mary’s University, the misogynist Facebook posts at Dalhousie’s dental school, and the suspension of the University of Ottawa’s hockey team have brought the topic of campus sexual assault under intense public scrutiny and the media accounts point to a widespread systemic rape culture on Canadian campuses. The objective of this paper is to examine the existing structure of campus sexual assault services at Canadian universities and colleges in order to highlight best practices and barriers to their success. The study’s data collection entailed an environmental scan of existing programs and campus-community collaborations across Canada, and a half-day symposium in which stakeholders reviewed the scan’s results and developed recommendations. The study’s findings indicate that most campus sexual assault and women’s centres rely on volunteers and collaboration with off-campus organizations in order to maintain a breadth of services for sexual assault survivors. Funding challenges were found to impose significant limitations to the functionality of the centres. The paper closes with recommendations for improvements, including public education programming and dedicated services provided by professionals with specialized training and experience. 
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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