Gender and power in the ivory tower: sexual harassment in graduate supervision in China
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how female graduate students in China would perceive their experiences as survivors of sexual harassment by their faculty supervisors. Based on our narrative interviews at Chinese universities, this study has shown that 1) sexual harassment is the supervisor’s expression of gender-based power in Chinese academia; 2) instead of blatant coercion, harassers would use their power strategically to influence and manipulate the student’s ‘consent’ – that is, to lead the victim into deceived or illusory perceptions in order to sexually harass her; 3) for those participants who refused or resisted in particular, their academic progress, careers, health, relationships, and trust to society were all negatively affected; 4) a major cause of sexual harassment in the university setting was that female scholars and students were always treated in a sexual role rather than an academic role; and 5) institutional sexual harassment policies that deploy moral norms as a tool of attributing responsibility and blame can be seen as maintaining the very sexual hierarchies in the university settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it