Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual violence on post-secondary campuses is highly problematic. While sexual violence has been recognized as a health issue and social concern for many years, it is only recently that sexual violence and its concerning effects of victimization have merited closer attention from media. This media attention has, subsequently, resulted in a public outcry and has forced post-secondary institutions to implement sexual violence policies and programming. However, it has also led to an explosion of studies within academia. One of the areas that has not been studied extensively in the past but is increasing today is the study of uncommitted sexual encounters—otherwise known as hook-ups—in connection to sexual violence.Many studies concerning sexual violence discuss items that place an individual at higher risk for experiencing sexual violence, and one of the many risks is engagement in hook-ups. While engagement in hook-ups increases the risk of sexual violence victimization, it is questionable as to whether or not students are aware of this reality. With today's attitudes surrounding relationships and intimacy, it is difficult to measure this, as, according to some, engagement in hook-up culture simply fills one's desire for pleasure. In other words, perhaps the thoughts around engaging in hook-ups are less focused on the idea that there may be a risk for violence. Because it is unknown as to whether or not students conceptualize engagement in hook-up culture with sexual violence, this study seeks to discover the extent to which students conceptualize connections between sexual violence and hook-ups. Discipline: Sociology (Honours) Faculty Mentor: Dr. Kalyani Thurairajah
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.121 | 0.033 |
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".