Symbolic Power and the Institutional Response to Rape: Uncovering the Cultural Dynamics of a Forensic Technology*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans plusieurs juridictions, la réponse médicolégal au viol est axée sur l'utilisation d'une des versions de ce qu'on appelle communément une « trousse de prélèvement dans les cas de viol ». De telles trousses sont utilisées par des professionnels de la santé dans le but de recueillir des preuves corroborantes sur le corps des femmes victimes d'agression sexuelle. L'usage de cette trousse se fonde sur l'hypothèse qu'elle peut conduire à la production de preuves techniques sur la véracité de l'allégation d'une femme. Dans cette étude, nous nous sommes servies des données d'enquêtes, d'interviews et de recherches effectuées auprès des groupes cibles de professionnels spécialisés dans l'agression sexuelle en Ontario, pour étudier comment les interprétations et les valeurs sociétales dominantes et spécifiquement professionnelles peuvent se conjuguer à l'utilisation régulariséd de la trousse provinciale d'examen consécutif à une agression sexuelle pour preuves judiciaires. Across many jurisdictions, the medico-legal response to rape is centred on the use of what is commonly known as a “rape kit.” These are administered by health professionals to sexually assaulted women for the purpose of collecting corroborating evidence from their bodies. The assumption is that the use of this kit can lead to the production of technical facts about the truth of a woman's allegation. We drew on data from survey, interview and focus group research with sexual assault professionals in Ontario to explore how dominant societal and narrow profession-specific values and interpretations may be intertwined with the regularized use of the provincial Sexual Assault Evidence Kit.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".