Coaching, Touching, and False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether in sports training or in physical education contexts, touching is an integral component of the coaches’ tasks. However, recent evidence suggests that touching has become a significant concern for coaches in Canada and elsewhere, maybe due to the increased sensitivity toward child protection discourses. In fact, it appears that some coaches are concerned that touching children while coaching can potentially lead to false allegations of abuse by young people in their care or by the young person’s parents. These apprehensions are pushing some coaches to protect themselves by adopting various strategies or by avoiding certain situations, like touching. Recent evidence suggests that fears of false allegations can represent an obstacle for the prevention of sexual abuse. Moreover, these fears can have a significant impact on the victims of these crimes. Throughout this article, we explore the question of touching in coaching and the fears of false allegations of sexual abuse sometimes associated. The authors focus on understanding the foundations of these fears and offer some answers to the difficult questions that arise from this situation from a Canadian perspective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it