Bloody Burdens: Post-secondary Students and Menstruation on Campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss a qualitative data set that was gathered as part of a survey aiming to document access to menstrual supplies on campus and impacts on students. This research emerged in response to the growing interest in menstrual equity on campus, as well as literature examining student experiences of menstruation in the Global North. Through a thematic analysis, three main themes emerged: menstruation happens on campus, menstruation is managed on campus, and finally, the “solution” to the “problem.” Woven throughout the paper are notes on changes on the campus where the study took place and as the research unfolded—including the installation of barrier-free dispensers. In closing, we offer a postscript on the challenge of simple fixes—such as swapping out dispensers—in relation to addressing supports needed for menstruators. We found that menstruation is a burden that is experienced differentially by students, and outcomes and impacts cannot easily be confined to expected campus spaces, such as toilets. To this end, there is no easy fix, and we should not lose sight of the deeper and ongoing work ahead within post-secondary settings and beyond.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".