Governing the politics of consent: Gender, expert knowledge, and Bill C-49.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bill C-49 was enacted in the Canadian Criminal Code in 1992. For the first time in Canadian legal history this new legislation provided a definition of consent as it applies to sexual assault offences. The enactment of Bill C-49 by Parliament was clearly aimed at resolving problems that emerged within legal proceedings dealing with sexual assault. Bill C-49 was therefore enacted to govern the legal proceedings of sexual assault cases and actors of the juridical field. The courts, in turn, have adopted complex heterogeneous ways of dealing with, and managing their relations in light of, the legislative amendments of Bill C-49. Employing a feminist understanding of governance in the context of sexual assault, I argue that determinations of consent are governed by a complex assemblage of legal rationalities, expert knowledges and responsibilization strategies employed by judicial actors in sexual assault cases. The various ways that these governing mechanisms link up and contest with one another plays an essential role in determinations of consent. More specifically, the degree to which these governing mechanisms interconnect reflects elaborate power/knowledge relations within the juridical field that arise from, but also perpetuate, normative constructions of gender and heterosexuality. Determinations of consent therefore constitute a contested site where power is exercised through competing rationalities, knowledges and strategies of various actors within the juridical field.Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2002 .O45. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 41-04, page: 0971. Adviser: Suzan Ilcan. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2002.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".