MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783187002

Reivew of The Technoscientific Witness of Rape by Andrea Quinlan

2017· article· en· W2783187002 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBioethics and Human Rights Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How has Ontario's Sexual Assault Evidence Kit (SAEK) developed over the past thirty years, what purpose does it serve and whom does it benefit?These questions are at the heart of Andrea Quinlan's highly nuanced analysis, The Technoscientific Witness of Rape.In six clearly written and compellingly argued chapters, Quinlan contextualises the SAEK, exposing the tensions, contradictions and controversies surrounding its development and use, and demonstrates that it has failed to deliver to victims of sexual violence the justice it promises.Quinlan introduces the central theoretical, methodological and conceptual resources that inform the book in Chapter One, 'Introduction: Diffracting the Technoscientific Witness.' First, as an actor-network theorist, Quinlan considers the SAEK itself as one of the many actors operating in a medicolegal network which responds to sexual assault, and she argues that the kit serves as a 'boundary object' that not only coordinates the action of participants in the network, but also reflects the tensions and contradictions between medical, legal, scientific and advocacy practices.Second, situating her analysis squarely in feminist technoscience studies, Quinlan utilises Haraway's diffraction metaphor.Emphasising the multiple narratives operative in the SAEK and its history, Quinlan writes, 'Uncertainties, tensions, and debates in law, feminism, and forensic science become visible through this diffracted visioning of the kit, which lays the necessary ground for imagining more ethical and alternative ways of organising medicolegal practice around sexual assault ' (21).Asking who designed it, why and how, Quinlan traces the origins of the SAEK in Chapter Two, 'Inscriptions of Doubt: Law, Anti-Rape Activism, and the Early SAEK.'She argues that early feminist critiques of how victims of sexual assault were treated by medical and legal institutions set the stage for the development of the kit.In addition to charges of pervasive sexism and misogyny in medical and legal practices, anti-rape activists criticised the lack of protocols for evidence collection and the lack of training for physicians and nurses.However, while the move to standardised evidence collection promised the elimination of bias against victims, it came at the cost of marginalising rape crisis centers and the expertise that feminist activists had developed regarding victim advocacy.It also reinforced popular distrust of women's reports of rape and demands for corroborative evidence.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · 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