Therapeutic Consequences of Civil Actions for Damages and Compensation Claims by Victims of Sexual Abuse - An Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article report the results from a study about how survivors of sexual abuse experience the legal system when they make claims from compensation. In particular, the authors tried to evaluate the processes within a therapeutic context drawn largely from the work of Judith Herman. The authors interviewed eighty-seven respondents 98 percent of whom were female. This number included forty-eight participants who had filed compensation claims with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board of Ontario; thirteen Canadian litigants who had commenced civil actions for sexual battery; and twenty six participants whose claims were validated under the unique Agreement between the Grandview Survivors Group and the Government of Ontario. Respondents were questioned about what motivated them to initiate the claim for compensation. They were also asked about various aspects of the claiming processes, including the role of the family members, therapists, lawyers and judges; the impact of delay; and the impact of settlement actually obtained. Almost all respondents reported that financial goals had been secondary to therapeutic expectations. Most reported significant therapeutic consequences, some positive and some negative. The article relies heavily on the actual words used by the survivors to descrive their claiming experiences. These are their stories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".