MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6999646389

Designing for Safety: A Feminist Approach to Campus Planning at Queen’s University

2025· other· en· W6999646389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditHarassmentFocus groupUniversity campusPlan (archaeology)PerceptionHuman factors and ergonomicsDebriefingSAFER
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women-identifying students are disproportionately impacted by harassment and assault in post-secondary settings, leading to heightened fear in public campus spaces. Safety concerns result in precautionary behaviours that limit their mobility and full participation in campus life, contributing to social and academic inequities compared to men-identifying students. This report examines Queen’s University’s Campus Master Plan and the built form of the Main Campus by identifying factors influencing women-identifying students’ perceptions of safety. The objectives of this research are to: 1) Identify the spatial components of Queen’s University’s Main Campus, particularly Snodgrass Arboretum, that influence women-identifying students’ perceptions of safety 2) Assess Queen’s University’s Campus Master Plan to determine its efforts in promoting campus safety 3) Offer recommendations to improve the built environment at Queen’s University and other institutions of higher education, creating a safer campus experience for women-identifying students. To achieve these objectives, several research methods were employed. An adapted version of METRAC’s Campus Safety Audit Guide was used to assess Snodgrass Arboretum—one of the campus’s largest green spaces. The audit, rooted in CPTED and PAR, allowed participants to serve as experts of experience, identifying factors within the site that made them feel safe and unsafe. A focus group debriefing session and mapping exercise supported audit findings and allowed for further discussion of emerging themes across the Main Campus. A document review of Queen’s Campus Master Plan examined the presence and quality of campus safety policies. Findings indicate opportunities to enhance perceptions of safety on campus through both design and policy interventions. Design-wise, improved visibility, the animation of spaces to encourage bystander presence, and increased maintenance of safety features emerged as prominent themes. Policy findings emphasized the need for stronger monitoring to ensure implementation, better advertising of safety guidelines, and the inclusion of a dedicated safety section within the Campus Master Plan. Eleven recommendations were developed not only to make Queen’s a safer campus but also to establish a benchmark for advancing campus safety at similar Canadian institutions. Violence against women is a systemic issue that cannot be solved by design or policy alone—but integrating these tools is a necessary step toward creating safer, more inclusive spaces for girls and women within our communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→French-language works237,207→