Independent Legal Representation for Victims of Sexual Assault: A Model for Delivery of Legal Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a number of legislative initiatives designed to address the problem, the fact remains that in Canada today very few victims of sexual assault report the offence to police. The primary reason, which underlies the decision to remain silent, is a fear of our criminal justice system. Victims who do choose to come forward are often frustrated and angry with the experience. Complaints about the legal process tend to focus on the lack of information and communication from officials, and the very limited opportunity for victims of crime to actively participate in the judicial process. In this paper the author examines these issues and develops a model which will provide independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault. The model recognizes and respects the rights of the accused and our adversarial system of criminal justice. At the same time, the proposal seeks to encourage participation, facilitate meaningful and effective participation, and advance the rights and interests of victims of sexual assault.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".