Dating Violence on Post Secondary Campuses: Men’s Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of university students who identify as men and who are victims of dating violence is poorly understood. Services and supports available on campuses and in the community have not typically considered the needs of men. Aim: The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the experiences of university men who experienced dating violence, factors influencing awareness, the impact on their lives and decisions to seek support and to disclose. Methods: A grounded theory study, using constructivist methodology was used. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 participants who identified as male. Thematic analysis was used. Strategies to improve credibility, dependability and auditability were implemented throughout. Findings: A theoretical framework was developed with gender as the central concept, affecting each of the core elements of interest. Most of the men were not initially aware that their experiences were considered dating violence until after leaving the relationship. This awareness was impacted not only by gender stereotypes but by their vulnerability, the context of the campus and the nature of their abuse. The impact of the violence was seen in their isolation, health, guilt and shame, their academic success and in other relationships. Men described issues with various forms of support. Family and faculty were of variable assistance in supporting their recovery. Implications: The findings underscore the need for prevention and intervention strategies tailored to the needs of students identifying as men. There are also potential implications for increased awareness and education for other populations in a post secondary context.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".