Increasing knowledge and campus trust in reporting sexual and interpersonal violence: The role of the Title IX coordinator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study explores the influence of Title IX awareness on systematic barriers to reporting sexual and interpersonal violence among college students. Participants: The study surveyed undergraduate and graduate students from a public Northeastern institution (n = 10,615). The study also used a sub-sample of those that did not report their experience of violence (n = 6,319). Methods: The relationship between Title IX awareness and non-reporting was examined using the total sample (n = 10,615) and the relationship between Title IX awareness and systematic barriers was examined using the sub-sample of non-reporting participants (n = 6,319). Analysis was conducted using chi-square tests and logistic regression modeling. Results: Students who could identify their Title IX Coordinator were more likely to report their experience of sexual and interpersonal violence and less likely to identify the systematic barriers. Conclusions: The Title IX Coordinator may play a crucial role in increasing reporting knowledge and improving the campus climate.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".