Sexual violence, secrets, and work: Ruling relations of campus sexual violence policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Campus sexual violence complaints involving students might seem easy to record and report, but university campuses in North America have a culture of secrecy and tend to focus on neoliberal approaches. In this paper, I trace the genealogy of a sexual violence policy from an unnamed university to argue that ruling relations make the current provincially mandated stand-alone sexual violence policies into a performative tool that silences expert knowledges, coordinates institutional practices towards a particular type of sexual violence prevention, and re-inforces a broader neoliberal logic in higher education. I explore my argument in the following three sections: the social organization of the policy and prevention campaign, the rules and regulations of the policy, and the neoliberalism of the current sexual violence discourse. As my analytical framework, I draw on Dorothy Smith's social ontology, which aims to investigate the practices and experiences of people by focusing on work and bodily existence as key points of reference. Drawing upon in-depth semi-structured interviews I conducted with fourteen participants (and one email exchange) at an unnamed Ontario university, I analyze how variously positioned people within an institutional structure negotiate relations of ruling in the specific context of campus sexual violence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".