MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049703707 · doi:10.1177/1363460720947308

Willed ambiguity: An exploratory study of sexual misconduct affecting sexual minority male university students in Canada

2020· article· en· W3049703707 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexualities · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual misconductExploratory researchHarassmentHuman sexualityThematic analysisSexualizationPsychologyAmbiguityGender studiesCriminologyQueerConversationSociologyHarmSocial psychologyQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We offer exploratory reflections on the matter of sexual misconduct affecting sexuality minority male students by males in positions of authority in the university, based on interviews with eight sexual violence service providers and five men across Canada with lived experience, as well as information gathered through our recruitment work. Data were interpreted using thematic analysis. Our results indicate that there is a need to think through the specificity of sexual misconduct involving men in university settings. Several dynamics operate to perpetuate a willed ambiguity on this issue that allow abuses of power to go unchecked. These include difficulties in having a conversation on this topic, the sexualization of gay male culture, gender dynamics among gay men, ‘queer’ justifications, risks of social isolation, and financial precarity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it