STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE INTERVENTIONS AND PREVENTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite more focused attention on the issue of sexual violence at post-secondary institutions, cases continue to be a great concern on campuses. This research examined the interventions and preventions that had been implemented in institutions of higher education (IHEs) to prevent and respond to sexual violence for students and explored student perspectives regarding further enhancement of campus sexual safety for a more equal and welcoming learning environment to promote academic success and personal development. This qualitative single-case study focused on student perspectives at one Canadian Research University (CRU). Data were collected through document analysis, semi-structured interviews (n=8), and the researcher’s notes and were analysed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phased design of thematic analysis. The document analysis explored the policies and administrative information on sexual violence in IHEs that aimed to support students’ campus sexual safety. The findings of semi-structured interviews demonstrated students’ understanding of sexual violence and its prevalence and influences on campus as well as the students’ experiences of accessing related educational programmes, services, and policies on campus. Additionally, the students provided suggestions for further improvement: 1) raise awareness on campus, 2) expand advertising strategies, 3) enhance options for programming, 4) identify relevant services explicitly, and 5) develop inclusiveness of programming. These findings largely align with viewpoints from the literature regarding the issue of sexual violence and suggestions to improve sexual safety in higher education and elaborated various students’ perspectives on the issue. This research also provides scholars and administrators in IHEs with implications for improving and enhancing campus sexual safety for their students in the areas of practice, research, and theory.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".