CanadianJounial of Counselling/Revue canadienne de counseling/'1994, Vol. 28:3 193 A Narrative Study o f Qualitative Data o n Sexual Assault, C o e r c i o n a n d Harassment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A narrative analysis of 159 stories of unwanted sexual attention written bv residents in single student residence halls is provided. Four story types are reviewed with separate consideration of the contributions of female and male residents. The patterns of sexual harassment in residence and their consequences for residents are described and discussed with particular reference to the implications for counselling and recommendations concerning the content and process of preventive education. Resume Cette étude présente une analyse narrative de 159 histoires, dont le contenu porte sur une attention sexuelle non voulue, écrites par des résidents demeurant en résidence pour per-sonnes seules. Quatre types d'histoires sont revues en utilisant des considérations différentes selon qu'elles s'appliquent aux contributions faites soit par des résidentes ou par des résidents. Les caractéristiques de l'harassement sexuel en résidence et leurs conséquences pour les résidents sont décrites et discutées. Elles se réfèrent particulièrement aux implications au niveau du counseling et des recommandations sont présentées concernant le contenu et le processus d'une éducation préventive.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.005 |
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".