MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173288171 · doi:10.3138/topia.33.133

Deconstructing Docility: Sexual Assault Law and Embodied Resistance to Violence

2015· article· en· W2173288171 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lucía Lorenzi

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsResistance (ecology)SubjectivityCriminologyIndigenousSociologyEmbodied cognitionState (computer science)Inscribed figurePoliticsSexual violenceGender studiesLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the disproportionate sexual violence faced by Indigenous women to the incidents that prompted Canadian activists to found the SlutWalk movement, the nation-state’s relationship to violated bodies continues to highlight the ways in which legal and cultural discourses often situate victims of sexualized violence as self-surveilling agents who are ultimately deemed responsible for their own safety. Building on work by Michel Foucault, I trace a history of vulnerable bodies and subjectivity vis-à-vis sexual violence, arguing that through the politics of selfsurveillance and contemporary rape-prevention discourse, both specific bodies and specific geographical locations are materialized as abject. Focusing specifically on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and drawing on literary texts that directly address how vulnerable bodies are legally constituted, I suggest that violated bodies are not merely passively inscribed by the law, but rather that our readings of them can help to unsettle and resist the discourses that attempt to constrain and define them.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.103
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207