Regulating (Hetero)Sexual Offences in British Columbia, 1885-1940
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
Since the late twentieth century, much literature and debate has addressed the use and misuse of science and expertise in the courts and the relationship between science and law in the determination of legal outcomes. Feminists have examined these issues in relation to the adjudication of criminal cases involving women accused (battered woman syndrome – BWS; pre-menstrual syndrome – PMS) and women complainants/victims (rape trauma syndrome – RTS) as well as cases in other areas of law such as sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Their research demonstrates that expert testimony reflects class-based, gendered, racialized, and sexualized assumptions and is clearly important to case outcomes. On one hand, judges often are swayed by expert testimony given at trial and/or submitted at the pre-trial or pre-sentence stage of the criminal process. On the other hand, non-legal experts often act like legal agents on behalf of either the prosecution or the defense. Indeed, the issue of competing experts is central to much discussion and debate about their place in criminal proceedings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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