Taking Off the Rose-Colored Glasses: Experiences of Sexual Assault and Institutional Mistrust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite attempts to reduce sexual assault, approximately one-quarter of university students in Canada and the United States will experience a sexual assault during their undergraduate experience. In addition to the interpersonal trauma survivors experience during a sexual assault, institutions may respond in ways that amplify this trauma, failing students at an especially vulnerable point. Sexual assault has a long-term impact on the way survivors perceive the world and interact with institutions, often resulting in disillusionment. This study sought to understand how experiencing sexual assault, including the timing of that assault, is linked to university students’ perceptions of institutions and their policies, perceived risk of sexual assault, and rape myth acceptance. Students from a Canadian institution ( N = 1,220) completed an online survey that assessed their sexual assault history, from which they were grouped in terms of timing of the assault experience: pre-university, during university, prior to and during university, and no sexual assault history. A one-way multiple analysis of variance revealed that individuals with any sexual assault history reported lower institutional trust, more negative perceptions of their institution’s sexual assault policies, greater perceived risk of sexual assault, and lower endorsement of rape myths than those with no sexual assault history. Differences from those with no assault history were larger among those who had experienced sexual assault during their university experience. Additional exploratory analyses showed that diminished campus belonging among survivors of sexual assault was mediated by lower levels of institutional trust. Implications are centered around the long-term impacts of sexual assault, the role that institutions play in amplifying negative outcomes, and the role that these impacts play in reducing reporting and help-seeking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".