MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595150861 · doi:10.1002/bsl.2185

Factors Associated with Delays of Days to Decades to Criminal Prosecutions of Child Sexual Abuse

2015· article· en· W1595150861 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Deborah A. Connolly, Kristin Chong, Patricia I. Coburn, Danyael Lutgens

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComplaintCriminologySexual assaultLawPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until the latter part of the 20th century, legal doctrines made it almost impossible to successfully prosecute in criminal court a case involving child sexual abuse (CSA), whether the complaint was timely or delayed. Many English-speaking countries have abrogated most formal legal barriers to prosecuting CSA cases, and courts are faced with the singular challenge of adjudicating sexual offenses against children that are reported to have happened years or decades earlier. We conducted analyses of 4,237 criminal complaints of CSA heard in Canadian criminal courts. There were several differences between timely and delayed prosecutions that led us to conclude that delayed prosecutions of CSA are common and due, in part, to the nature of the offense. Offense duration was associated with longer delays to prosecution. When the accused had access to the child through his position in the community, length of delay to prosecution was very long, particularly for male complainants. More research is needed on delayed CSA prosecutions, particularly given an apparent trend for jurisdictions to abolish barriers to criminal prosecutions of CSA that occurred years or decades earlier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207