Genuine concern or lip service: sexual violence policies in Canadian post-secondary institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-secondary institutions are intended to be safe spaces where students, faculty, and staff are encouraged to experience and engage in critical thought and discussion. When critical thought and discussion occurs, it may raise awareness, give context, and challenge assumptions which have potential to shift the narrative around big issues. Although post-secondary institutions foster the intellectual growth of its members, they are also environments where its members face sexual violence. While sexual violence has always been present in these institutions, it is only more recently that sexual violence along with its impacts on victims received closer attention from media. This media attention resulted in a public pressure which demands post-secondary institutions to create and implement policies and educational programming that specifically addresses sexual violence. Other policies and processes, however, such as Student Codes of Conduct the criminal justice system, already designate forms of sexual violence as intolerable or illegal. Due to the massive public pressure and demand for policies which specifically address sexual violence and sexual violence only, it is crucial to examine how or if these policies add or contribute to the policy or legislative context in Canada. To examine these policies, this research investigates campus community members’ knowledge of and perceptions of sexual violence policies in the context of Canadian post-secondary institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".