MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291014863 · doi:10.1177/10778012221092476

A Popular Approach, but Do They Work? A Systematic Review of Social Marketing Campaigns to Prevent Sexual Violence on College Campuses

2022· review· en· W4291014863 on OpenAlex
Chelsey Lee, Jessica Bouchard, Jennifer S. Wong

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial marketingSummative assessmentOutcome (game theory)PsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionWork (physics)Occupational safety and healthSexual violencePublic relationsMedicineSocial psychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringEnvironmental healthCriminologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

College campuses continue to face high rates of sexual violence and social marketing campaigns have emerged as a common prevention strategy. However, there exists no summative research examining the effectiveness of this approach. A systematic search yielded 15 evaluations of eight unique prevention campaigns, which contributed to 38 individual outcome measures across four outcome categories (i.e., knowledge, attitudes, intentions/efficacy, and behavior). Summative results are mixed, but show promising campaign effects for increasing knowledge, modification of some attitudes toward sexual violence, intentions to participate, and actual participation in prevention activities. More evaluative research is needed for a comprehensive understanding of campaign effectiveness.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.294 · 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