MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402911586 · doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.1ceecc1c

Does “Consent Matter”? An Evaluation of a Sexual Consent Awareness Campaign for College Students

2024· article· en· W4402911586 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chelsey Lee, Jennifer S. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCrimRxiv · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInformed consentMedical educationMedicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consent, or lack thereof, is paramount in instances of sexual violence among college students. The current study assessed the impact of the Consent Matters campaign on Canadian undergraduate students’ (N = 799) attitudes toward sexual consent, perceived behavioral control in obtaining consent, use of indirect methods of obtaining consent, as well as recall of the campaign materials. Results indicate no significant impact of the campaign on student attitudes and beliefs regarding sexual violence and consent but do indicate students hold strongly positive attitudes toward consent. Recommendations for future campaigns and evaluations are discussed.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrimRxivSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207