Campus Sexual Violence Policies and Popular Media: An Examination of Discourses of Sexual Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade there has been considerable attention paid to campus sexual violence in Canada by the media, public and politicians. Recent legislative changes now ensure that universities in some provinces must have a standalone sexual violence policy in place, along with a documented response system. But university campuses are not isolated from their social, political and economic contexts and therefore, campus sexual violence policies, like popular media, reflect the trends and values of a larger society. Currently, there is a lack of critical research examining campus sexual violence discourses in the Canadian context, and this undermines the knowledge of how these policies are created, how they work, and whether they are effective. My dissertation offers a critical contribution to fill this gap in the literature. Through the production of three inter-related and publishable papers, I address two research questions: 1) What common discourses are present in sexual violence policies and popular media; 2) What are the discourses that either reinforce or undermine change? To answer these questions, I conducted a feminist critical discourse analysis on a stand alone sexual violence policy; I conducted interviews and mapped the social relations and institutional texts of one sexual violence creation process (including institutional actors, the internal sphere of the sexual violence policy creation process and the external sphere); and finally, I investigated the world outside the campus environment – where the discourse of white feminism dominates certain texts about sexual violence.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".