MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE? PARENTAL EXPERIENCES OF THE CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CASES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE*

2009· article· en· W1972185549 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ramona Alaggia, Elizabeth Lambert, Cheryl Regehr

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Court Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeChild sexual abuseCITESCriminologyPsychologySexual abuseSexual assaultRestorative justiceSocial psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPolitical scienceMedicineLawMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research concerning child victims of sexual abuse in the judicial system cites largely negative experiences and outcomes. However, few investigations focus on parental experiences of the justice system. Using a grounded theory method this Canadian study explored parental experiences of legal and judicial processes for child sexual abuse victims. Nineteen in‐depth interviews with parents encountering the justice system, as well as interviews with professionals working in those systems were analyzed. Results show a wide range of experiences, with parents reporting predominantly negative outcomes that potentially impede healing for children, indicating earlier judicial reforms have not been realized. Recommendations call for structural changes in the judicial system and more provision of parent‐focused supports.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Court ReviewSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207