Sexual violence in higher education: staff knowledge, understanding and confidence in supporting minoritized students who disclose sexual violence
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
Sexual violence on UK university campuses has received research and policy attention. However, little is known about the experiences of and responses to student victim-survivors with minoritized identities and how inequalities linked to race, sexuality and disability may impact the disclosure process. To address this gap, we conducted 34 interviews with academic and professional service staff working at three UK universities to understand their knowledge of the intersections between minoritization and sexual violence, awareness of institutional processes and support provision and confidence in receiving disclosures of sexual violence. Our findings outline the layers of complexity that minoritization adds to the experience of sexual violence, and the lack of confidence amongst academic staff in receiving disclosures, compounded by their limited knowledge of institutional provision and process. We call for a whole-institution, intersectional response to enable universities to provide practices and policies that serve the interests of all.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it