Identifying barriers and facilitators to reporting and disclosing sexual violence (SV) for undergraduate students in Canadian and American universities: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian and American undergraduate universities grapple with gender-based violence, notably sexual violence (SV), primarily affecting women in their initial four months of university. However, an estimated 90% of survivors/victims do not report assaults, exacerbating psychological trauma and impacting resource allocation and the implementation of effective prevention strategies. Survivors/victims' reluctance to report also denies them access to university accommodations and resources, impacting health and well-being. Immediate risks of SV include physical and emotional trauma, while long-term consequences encompass mental health conditions, educational setbacks, and economic losses. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comprehensively review and synthesize literature on underreported SV in Canadian/American universities. Through assessment, we seek to understand the strengths and gaps in current knowledge. Collaborating with experts, we aim to co-create recommendations for revising colonialized policies and reporting procedures, potentially eliminating barriers and enhancing facilitators. Our primary question focuses on identifying SV reporting barriers and facilitators for Canadian/American undergraduate survivors/victims. Given that a significant number of students at Canadian and American universities identify as Indigenous, African Canadian/American, International, and 2SLBGTQIAA + and we would like to know if the barriers and facilitators to reporting SV differ for these students, we added several sub-questions exploring intersections of race, culture, and gender. Addressing these knowledge gaps will inform policymaking, guide policy revisions, and improve reporting pathways, ultimately enhancing student safety and fostering violence-free Canadian and American campuses. DESIGN: Databases inclusive of PubMED, CINHAL, PsycInfo, ERIC, and Web of Science as well as sources of grey literature were used to identify papers published between 2000 and 2024, from which we selected articles relevant to barriers and facilitators of reporting sexual violence in Canadian and American undergraduate universities. RESULTS: We will employ the PRISMA flow chart for the systematic search, selection, and inclusion of evidence. Each source's key characteristics will be summarized in the text, while detailed information will be organized in tables and appendixes. Specific data, aligned with our primary and sub-questions, will be charted, and a narrative synthesis will be formulated using the results table. CONCLUSIONS: The study's results will offer a comprehensive overview of obstacles and factors influencing the reporting of sexual violence, highlighting variations based on cultural and sexual identities. Addressing these knowledge gaps will provide data for shaping recommendations, refining policies, and enhancing accessible reporting avenues. Ultimately, this contributes to improving student safety and fostering violence-free campuses in Canada and the United States (US).
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 | 0.096 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".