MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229454636 · doi:10.29173/pathfinder54

Sexual Assault Survivors and Information: Needs and Recommendations

2022· article· en· W4229454636 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephanie Willen Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePathfinder A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career Professionals · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathySexual assaultPsychologyDistressSexual violenceMental healthInformation needsEmpowermentPoison controlSuicide preventionSocial psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineCriminologyMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the information needs of sexual assault survivors, with a focus on the kinds of information these individuals may be seeking and how libraries can best assist survivors with their information needs. The paper begins with an overview of sexual assault as a pervasive problem in society in order to form a basis of understanding of what a sexual assault survivor may be going through and the kinds of barriers that may affect their information seeking. The information needs of sexual assault survivors are complex because of their experiences of violence and trauma, and these factors often result in mental and physical health challenges, and potentially distressing information seeking experiences. In order to best serve sexual assault survivors in libraries, I recommend a trauma-informed approach to librarianship, which underscores the importance of safety, empathy, and empowerment for the survivor. A trauma-informed approach to librarianship can assist sexual assault survivors in remedying potential distress through forming trust, validating their experiences and identity, valuing their voice, and ultimately, supporting their healing.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.019
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathfinder A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career ProfessionalsSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207