MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968733170 · doi:10.2304/gsch.2011.1.4.354

Luring Lolita: The Age of Consent and the Burden of Responsibility for Online Luring

2011· article· en· W1968733170 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Slane

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Studies of Childhood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmAutonomyThe InternetHuman sexualityPsychologyCriminologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that sexual exploitation is the underlying harm that online luring offences should address, but that social anxieties about youth online sexuality have obscured this underlying harm. Through analyzing North American Internet safety materials and Canadian luring case law, the author finds that on the one hand risks of luring are generalized and on the other limited only to victims under the age of consent. The result is that very often older youth are made responsible for their own victimization, while younger ones are assumed to be victimized and hence denied avenues to sexual expression. By neglecting to analyze online interactions for the dynamics of exploitation, we do a disservice to older youths who are exploited while denying sexual autonomy to youth under the age of consent.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Studies of ChildhoodSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207