The Sexual Assault of Older Women: Criminal Justice Responses in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines sexual violence against older women, a problem that has been largely hidden from view in the societal and legal discussion of sexual assault. The article identifies a significant disconnect between the social science description of sexual assault against older women, on the one hand, and the available case law, on the other. The social science literature suggests that older women are most likely to be sexually assaulted by somebody they know and that a disproportionate number of the sexual assaults against older women take place within care facilities. The case law, however, paints a very different picture of sexual violence against older women—a majority of the reported cases involve women attacked in their homes by strangers in the context of a robbery or home invasion. We argue that this portrayal of sexual violence against older women in the case law resembles that of the case law of sexual assault against younger women thirty years ago, before the women’s movement brought acquaintance and spousal sexual assault into the public eye. We conclude that these types of sexual assaults continue to be under-reported for older women, and we explore some of the reasons for the failure of the criminal justice system to respond to this group of complainants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".