The awareness of sexual violence policy within Thompson Rivers University students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thompson Rivers University (TRU) implemented new sexual violence policy in 2017; within this policy, they state a commitment to increasing the awareness of sexual violence. While increasing sexual violence awareness is important, another dimension to this is the awareness of the policy itself. Previous research conducted in the United States on student awareness of sexual violence policies found that there is a lack of sexual violence policy awareness among students (Potter, Edwards, Banyard, Stapleton, Demers, & Moynihan, 2016). There has been minimal research on this topic within Canada. This research aims to address this gap and identify if TRU students are aware of the sexual violence policy that is set in place to support them. Moreover, this research explores the process of how students became aware or could become aware of sexual violence policy in the future. The methodology of this research is a hand-written survey of 100 students that was distributed in public spaces on Thompson Rivers University’s Kamloops campus. This survey included a diverse group of students based on program and social location. The findings indicate that the majority of TRU students have little to no awareness of TRU’s sexual violence policy, as well as, other TRU policies. This supports the previous USA research that states many students are unaware of university policies (Brown, Henes, & Olson, 2016). Students who were aware, were primarily informed through poster campaigns, student orientation and the TRU website. Furthermore, students identified posters, social media and emails as their desired means for increasing their awareness.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".