Integrating Sexual Assault Resistance, Bystander, and Men’s Social Norms Strategies to Prevent Sexual Violence on College Campuses: A Call to Action
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
Sexual assault prevention on college campuses often includes programming directed at men, women, and all students as potential bystanders. Problematically, specific types of sexual assault prevention are often implemented on campuses in isolation, and sexual assault risk reduction and resistance education programs for women are rarely integrated with other approaches. With increasing focus on the problem of sexual assault on college campuses, it is timely to envision a comprehensive and interconnected prevention approach. Implementing comprehensive prevention packages that draw upon the strengths of existing approaches is necessary to move toward the common goal of making college campuses safer for all students. Toward this goal, this commentary unpacks the models and mechanisms on which current college sexual assault prevention strategies are based with the goal of examining the ways that they can better intersect. The authors conclude with suggestions for envisioning a more synthesized approach to campus sexual assault prevention, which includes integrated administration of programs for women, men, and all students as potential bystanders on college campuses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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