MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975190149 · doi:10.1017/s0829320100009121

Civil Liability for Sexual Assault in Aboriginal Residential Schools: The Baker Did It

2007· article· fr· W1975190149 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Feldthusen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffRedressTortDamagesHarmCredibilityCriminologyLawPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Sexual abuseLiabilityLegal liabilityPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Afin d'examiner le taux de réussite des plaignants victimes d'abus sexuels dans des écoles résidentielles autochtones, cet article passe en revue des décisions publiées en responsabilité civile. L'analyse est concentrée sur trois enjeux: la crédibilité, la quantification des dommages, ainsi que la responsabilité du fait d'autrui. La conclusion est que la responsabilité civile n'a pas servi les plaignants autochtones des écoles résidentielles. Leur témoignage est rarement cru dans un litige contesté. La détermination de l'indemnité ne tient pas compte de l'expérience totale du séjour en école résidentielle. En effet, l'indemnité est réduite pour refléter que certains dommages ne sont pas compensés. Le gouvernement n'est pas tenu responsable pour fait d'autrui de la totalité des abus perpétrés dans ces lieux. Les problèmes relevés dans cet article sont similaires à ceux vecus par d'autres plaignants d'abus sexuels. Toutefois, les survivants de ces écoles résidentielles ont dû faire face à des épreuves additionnelles, au-delà des défis posés à d'autres victimes. Nous aurions dû, et aurions pu, faire mieux.

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)0.014
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 score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et SociétéSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207