MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2233421159 · doi:10.1080/08974454.2015.1124823

Suspect Survivors: Police Investigation Practices in Sexual Assault Cases in Ontario, Canada

2016· article· en· W2233421159 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen & Criminal Justice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuspectSexual assaultCredibilityCriminologyPsychologyNormativeHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPolitical scienceMedicineMedical emergencyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite several decades of institutional reforms in sexual assault policing, sexual assault police investigators continue to dismiss a disproportionate number of sexual assault reports as unfounded. This article examines the policing practices behind these trends by outlining the techniques that police use to assess the credibility and truthfulness of survivors’ reports of sexual assault. Drawing on 17 semistructured interviews with sexual assault investigators working in urban policing organizations in Ontario, Canada, this article reveals how investigative techniques in sexual assault cases often rest on normative assumptions about who real survivors are and how they behave. Through this analysis, this article illustrates how survivors of sexual assault can become suspect in sexual assault investigations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.258 · 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