Exploring experiences of peer campus sexual violence educators through participatory photography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the issue of campus sexual violence and whether peer campus sexual violence educators view and interpret their work as contributing to the overall shift from rape culture as it operates on campus towards an informed culture of consent.Furthermore, consideration of whether participants experiences support the idea of rape culture as informing sexual violence prevention strategies employed on campus.Using a participatory photography approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the Sexual Violence Prevention Initiative at Saint Mary's University (Halifax, NS).Based on the research and findings post-thematic analysis, it is concluded that the peer campus sexual violence educators in this study understand their work as having direct result on campus culture change, with acknowledgement of rape culture as informing practice.April 23, 2019 Besides my supervisor, I would like to thank the rest of my 2018-2019 Honours Criminology class.Thank you all for your continuous encouragement and support.I look forward to reading each of your results.I must also thank my friends and family, especially my mom.Thank you for every word of encouragement and for always reminding me to enjoy and take pride in the process.Lastly
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".