MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335900209 · doi:10.1080/0145935x.2015.1092828

Child Sexual Abuse Images Online: Confronting the Problem

2015· article· en· W2335900209 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Martin, Andrea Slane

Bibliographic record

VenueChild & Youth Services · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild sexual abuseSexual abuseChild abuseLaw enforcementChild protectionChild pornographySocial mediaDomestic violencePsychologyPublic relationsSociologyCriminologyPoison controlPolitical scienceMedicineSuicide preventionThe InternetLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Special Issue stems from the international symposium, “Child Sexual Abuse Images Online: Confronting the Problem—Research, Policy, Practice,” which was held at Ryerson University in June 2014 with funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The collection of papers in the Issue focus on child sexual abuse images online from the perspectives of children's mental health, child protection, and law enforcement. The symposium brought together local and international academics, policymakers, child advocates, practitioners, law enforcement officers, child welfare workers, and other key stakeholders who assume various roles and responsibilities in responding to child sexual abuse. Over two days we shared knowledge, experiences, and insights related to the role of technology in child sexual abuse; specifically the implications of child sexual abuse images online. Through presentations, panel discussions, and round-table working group discussions, participants examined and shared current knowledge about child sexual abuse images online, identified key priorities, and determined critical strategies and vital next steps. The five articles in this Special Issue represent those cross-sectoral contributions. We thank the Editors of Child & Youth Services, Dr. Kiaras Gharabaghi and Dr. Ben Anderson-Nathe, for inviting us to develop a Special Issue for this journal based on the presentations made at the 2014 CSAIO Symposium. We also thank our external reviewers through whom all articles in this Issue were subjected to a rigorous blind peer review.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild & Youth ServicesSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207