MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490487651 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139095891.004

The Irony of Charging Children with Distribution of Child Pornography

2014· book-chapter· en· W2490487651 on OpenAlexaff
Shaheen Shariff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyPornographyPsychologyPsychoanalysisArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Those who are adjudicated or convicted of child pornography offenses are sexual offenders and often predators…Teenagers who engage in sexting should not face the same legal and moral conundrum . (Judge Robert L. Steinberg at p.11 in RE: C.S ., 2012) The statute at issue was designed to protect children, but in this case the court has allowed the state to use it against a child in a way that criminalizes conduct that is protected by constitutional right of privacy . (Judge Padovano, dissenting at para 241 in A.H. v. State of Florida , 2007) Introduction The previous chapter addressed the difficult issues of sexism and misogyny as they are ingrained in contemporary society, or, as they have resurfaced with a vengeance through the uses of digital and social media, which enable (but do not cause) rapid proliferation and perceived anonymity. Chapter 2 also highlighted the perspectives of the participants in the DTL Research that reflected their confusion about the difference between expressions for “fun” and expressions that were intentionally harmful as they thought about how they define the lines between joking or teasing and criminal harassment, threats, and distribution of intimate images. I also presented research findings and theories on moral development, moral disengagement, and empathy that have been conducted in the field of scholarship on bullying. The DTL Research, as analyzed within those theories, confirms developmental differences among children as they grow up, which sometimes prevents them from making thoughtful ethical and empathetic decisions. As I explained in Chapter 2, Digitally Empowered Kids (DE Kids) are influenced by a context in which adult society sends very confusing messages about sex and sexuality, freedom of expression, and privacy through popular culture, news, and film media. Children and teens witness violent models of verbal and physical behavior and communication often perpetrated by adults. It is no wonder kids have difficulty defining the lines between jokes and potentially criminal offenses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207