Does drug and alcohol intoxication influence perceptions of risk and punishment in the context of campus sexual assault?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual violence is a prevalent issue in post-secondary institutions. Past research has shown that substance abuse is one of the many known risk factors for sexual violence, and yet intoxicated perpetrators are often labelled as less blameworthy or responsible for their actions. In this study, post-secondary employees and students were presented with a vignette of a campus sexual assault and asked to rate the perpetrator’s risk to reoffend and the appropriateness of sanctions varying in severity. Two severe sanctions, on-campus activity restriction and expulsion, were rated more appropriate for sober perpetrators than intoxicated ones. Students, specifically, rated less severe sanctions lower and more severe sanctions higher in appropriateness compared to employees. Perpetrator intoxication and sample type influenced sanction appropriateness, suggesting subjective factors influenced disciplinary decisions. Implications for improving response to campus sexual violence, such as using objective measures of risk and including students’ input when developing policies, are discussed.PRACTICE IMPACT STATEMENT The results of this study highlight the importance of using non-subjective measures of risk for campus sexual violence to ensure that risk is calculated in a way that is fair and supported by empirical research. These results also support the incorporation of robust sexual violence response policies to decrease subjectivity around disciplinary decisions, and therefore reduce the likelihood of discrepancies that could decrease perceptions of trust and confidence in post-secondary institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".