Sexual Violence Prevention and International Students in Canadian Universities: Misalignments, Gaps and Ways Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports findings from a qualitative study exploring how international students and campus staff in urban universities in Canada perceive sexual violence and prevention initiatives enacted in their university. The study rests upon personal interviews and three focus groups involving a total of 95 participants (64 students from 25 countries and 31 campus support staff members who work directly with these learners). The analysis of these narratives focuses on three pivotal areas in sexual violence prevention: awareness, incident reporting patterns, and fostering a “culture of consent.” It reveals important misalignment between the needs and knowledges of international students and the Western, ethnocentric cultural logic of campus approaches. Instead, international students seek peer-led discussions about gender inequality, sexuality, safe sex, and the role of religion, culture, and parents within their own communities and countries of origin. They also seek safe spaces to think through and debate the kind of politics or actions that could enable changes within their home countries and the world.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".