The Insidiousness of Institutional Betrayal: An Ecological Systematic Review of Campus Sexual Violence Response Literature
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(IB), which is a theoretical framework that states that actions and inactions on the part of the institution can cause further harm to survivors of violence. The goals of this review were, using an ecological systems lens, to identify what specific behaviors, policies, responses, and other factors constitute IB or institutional support (IS) as defined by the existing literature. A search of 16 databases across 8 disciplines led to the identification of 100 articles that mentioned either IB or IS verbatim. Factors that can be categorized as IB and IS were identified across nine levels: (1) the individual level, (2) the interpersonal level, (3) within institutional spaces, (4) within institutional procedures, (5) within institutional policies, (6) at the institutional structural level, (7) at the institutional culture level, (8) at a government and public policy level, and (9) within greater societal cultural values and established social norms. IB itself manifests across all levels of the institution and is, in fact, quite insidious-it is largely invisible and deeply rooted in systemic oppression, woven into the structure of institutions of higher education. IB remains a looming, almost inevitable outcome of the structural violence that occurs in post-secondary settings. Yet, IS and the related concept of institutional courage are emerging fields of study that pose important implications for institutional change.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it