MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386227966 · doi:10.36315/2023v2end060

INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES TO PREVENT AND FIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN UNIVERSITIES - THE CASE OF QUEBEC, CANADA

2023· article· en· W4386227966 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation and new developments · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du QuébecUniversity of OttawaUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsSexual violencePolitical scienceCriminologyBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The high prevalence of sexual violence within academic institutions has been internationally documented.Furthermore, the phenomenon of under-reporting of sexual violence experiences has been observed worldwide.Official complaints to universities reflect only a very small proportion of sexual violence acts experienced by community members.Thus, understanding how higher education institutions can support victims of sexual violence, including in their reporting process is needed to improve upon current practices.Our results from two consecutive studies conducted in Quebec offer promising measures to stimulate the reflection process of higher education institutions in the fight against sexual violence.Based on a sample of 9,234 students and employees, the first study revealed the high prevalence of campus sexual violence in Quebec.Over one in three individuals have experienced at least one situation of sexual violence and less than 10% of victims had reported to their university.The second study used a qualitative methodology to conduct interviews with 22 victims to explore their experiences of reporting to their home university.Analyses shed light onto central themes, in particular the obstacles identified by victims in their reporting process to the university.These obstacles can be related to structural elements specific to institutions (e.g., specialized services' accessibility, sexual and gender-based policy) and the responses they can provide to victims, as well as elements belonging to the victim's environment and personal characteristics.By adopting actionable measures centered around the needs of victims, higher education institutions can promote a healthy and safe environment for community members, free of all forms of violence.The actual and sustained mobilization of institutional leaders and stakeholders in the fight against gender-based and sexual violence is an essential condition for cultural change in universities, and in so doing, would contribute to an equitable access to education within a social justice context.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.281 · 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