An Exploratory Study of Stalking on Christian Campuses: Does that Happen Here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite an increase in the research on stalking, much is still unknown about the incidence of stalking in higher-education campus populations. Specifically, most studies report prevalence (defined as lifetime or longer-term occurrences) rather than incidence (defined as recent occurrences, often within the past year, or since being in college), or fail to distinguish between them. Further, even though independent religious colleges and universities represent a substantial portion of postsecondary institutions, particularly within the North American context, little research exists on how the religious characteristics of an institution might influence stalking. This study contributes to the literature by providing improved estimates of the incidence of stalking—conceptualized as obsessive relational intrusion—based on a sample of students (N = 668) from eight independent Christian institutions of higher education in Canada. Incidence rates vary widely in the literature based on variations in sampling, definitions, and measurement. Compared to published incidence rates ranging from 4% to over 40%, this study found that 18% of all students and 23% of women students in Canadian Christian colleges reported experiencing one or more types of stalking behavior five times or more since age 18. An examination of factors related to stalking victimization revealed that only gender had an influence, affirming previous research that women are at greater risk for sexual violence than men. This study provides evidence that these Christian colleges are not immune to various forms of sexual violence and that college personnel must be vigilant in developing policies and programs to prevent and reduce stalking on their 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".