Women’s Experiences of Stalking on Campus: Behaviour Changes and Access to University Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined whether behavioural changes made by women students who experienced stalking on campus restricted their access to university resources and facilities. A diverse sample of two hundred and fifty-five university women with experiences of stalking, including racialized women, women with disabilities and members of sexual minorities, completed an online survey and asked if they had made changes to their behaviour on campus in order to feel safer or more secure and to describe those changes. Using phenomenological thematic analysis and a feminist theory framework of understanding stalking behaviour, themes and subthemes relevant to the research questions were generated. Thematic analysis of participant’s responses yielded five themes based on changes in behaviours or attitudes identified by students: restrictions in campus movements, increased vigilance, changes in social engagement, changes in academic engagement, and use of health/support services. Women self-identifying with a disability were more likely to report changing their behaviour on campus to feel safer and more comfortable following stalking victimization compared to individuals without disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".