MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128784284 · doi:10.1177/0886260521991297

Forcible, Substance-facilitated, and Incapacitated Sexual Assault Among University Women: A Canadian Sample

2021· article· en· W3128784284 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda Champion, Flora Oswald, Cory L. Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual assaultSuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyAlcohol consumptionOccupational safety and healthClinical psychologySubstance usePsychiatryMedicineDemographyMedical emergencyAlcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the frequency of sexual assault experiences in a sample of university women to understand the conditions under which sexual assault occurs, and compare alcohol and drug consumption patterns on the likelihood of experiencing sexual victimization. While patterns of victimization have been examined in American contexts, research on contemporary Canadian contexts is scant at present. We found that roughly 58% of the 377 university women in our sample attending one of three large Western Canadian universities in British Columbia reported having been sexually assaulted. These women reported a total of 528 incidents of sexual assault, with 56% of these involving substance-related nonpenetrative sex acts; 312 incidents were substance-related and 216 involved forcible sexual assault. The likelihood of sexual assault victimization was the highest among participants who identified as a sexual minority, consumed marijuana, and reported greater severity of recent alcohol consumption. The present research aims to inform sexual assault prevention and education efforts to reduce occurrences of victimization.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207