Thinking Goudge: Fatal child abuse and the problem of uncertainty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased valuation of children’s lives characteristic of modern society emphasizes the problem of child abuse. Beginning in the 1960s, increased public awareness of child abuse led to increased attention to the professions concerned with child homicide. This attention has taken the form of inquiries into children’s deaths that historically concentrated on social work ‘error’. Recent inquiries have expanded their attention to other professions, particularly the medical and policing professions. Ontario’s Goudge Inquiry centred on paediatric forensic pathology but, rather than focusing concern on murdered children, considered the moral hazard of wrongful convictions stemming from an overzealous concern with child abuse. The inquiry thus raises the problem of what evidence is certain, and how this certainty is evaluated. In turn, this makes the risk of child abuse reflexive insofar as under conditions of uncertainty professional medical judgement contains reflexive risk conditions. Because of these reflexive conditions, professional willingness to engage in child protection is being undermined and therefore threatens to paralyse the larger child protection project.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it