Development and validation of the <scp>C‐SHADE</scp> scale for measuring perpetration of common sexually harassing and aggressive behaviors in drinking environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual aggression (SA) is ubiquitous in drinking environments. Although such behavior is often seen as normal and acceptable, the targets of SA experience many negative consequences. This research aimed to develop a valid measure of common acts of SA in drinking settings for estimating prevalence and evaluating prevention initiatives. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire measure of common acts of sexual harassment and aggression in drinking environments (C-SHADE) based on descriptions of SA behavior from our own and others' research. The measure was validated in a cross-sectional survey of 335 men aged 19 to 25 using webpanels from an online survey company. Validation measures included: a modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (M-SES), measures of SA by peers in drinking environments, SA-related attitudes, expectancies about sexual effects of alcohol, and alcohol consumption. RESULTS: The C-SHADE showed high internal consistency (α = 0.96) and was significantly correlated with M-SES (r = 0.52), SA by peers (r = 0.61 to 0.70), SA-related attitudes/expectations (r = 0.38 to 0.55), and measures of alcohol consumption (r = 0.22 to 0.36). Overall, 71.9% of participants reported SA using the C-SHADE versus 24.7% with the M-SES. We compared the responses of participants who reported perpetration on both measures (N = 83), on only the C-SHADE (N = 141), and among nonperpetrators (N = 89; excluding four participants who reported perpetration only on the M-SES). The M-SES/C-SHADE perpetrators scored significantly higher than C-SHADE-only perpetrators and nonperpetrators on most SA-related and drinking measures, while C-SHADE-only perpetrators scored significantly higher than nonperpetrators on peer SA and two attitude measures. CONCLUSIONS: The C-SHADE is suitable for measuring prevalence and evaluating interventions in drinking settings. The C-SHADE confirmed a high prevalence of SA in drinking settings and identified an important group of C-SHADE-only perpetrators for whom interventions that focus on situational precipitators of SA in drinking settings may be especially useful.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".