Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an endemic problem of sexual assault being perpetuated on university campuses. It has been argued in previous literature that one in four women are sexually assaulted while in university, making this issue pervasive and of great importance to study. There is a gap in Canadian literature surrounding university responses to sexual assault, and the implementation and effectiveness of universities policies enacted to support survivors of sexual assault. This study will contribute to filling the existing gaps surrounding responses to sexual assault and in relation to sexual assault policies. A qualitative methodological approach of a case study using four cases was employed to explore how universities respond to sexual assault issues, and how policies inform these responses. I compiled articles surrounding the four cases and undertook a case study methodology to explore relevant themes among the articles. The findings from the study suggest that universities respond poorly to sexual assault as there is a lack of, or insufficient policies, which often results in the universities inability to respond to cases adequately, and inability to help the survivors. This research sheds light on the importance of studying sexual assault and policies on university campuses to improve the response and management of cases by universities.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".