“Stepping Up”: A Decade of Relationship Violence Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students in postsecondary education are at high risk for experiencing relationship violence, including dating, domestic, and sexual violence. This can result in significant mental and physical health consequences. A relationship violence prevention program has been offered and evaluated for over 10 years at a Canadian university. It is based on a social–ecological model of violence prevention and best practices. Students who completed both pre- and post-program evaluations were used as their own controls to evaluate the effects of the program. Significant changes were noted for most aspects of the program in knowledge, attitudes, and behavioural intents each year, and these changes persisted for up to six months on most measures. The sample sizes were small and potentially overestimated the effect of the program if results were reported individually. Meta-analysis was used to pool the data and examine the effects of the program across the decade. The results indicated that the program was effective in changing knowledge, attitudes, and behavioural intents immediately following the program, but there were insufficient paired data to conduct six-month meta-analyses. Suggestions are made for future programs and further research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".