19. Zero Tolerance Some of the Time? Doctors and Sexual Abuse in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sanda Rodgers considers another form of resistance and backlash to sexual assault reforms — the disciplinary response of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to women’s reports of sexual assault by doctors. While Susan Ehrlich discussed the subversion of sexual assault criminal law reforms through practices of trial discourse, Sanda’s research shows how the disciplinary process, which is another avenue through which women can seek redress for sexual assault and which offers the potential to avoid the many aspects of the criminal process that complainants experience as punitive, has been captured by criminal law principles and practices. She highlights reliance on psychiatric “expertise” to pathologize women and to excuse perpetrators, echoing a theme introduced by Jane Doe and further problematized by Sunny Marriner. Sanda’s analysis of “psychiatric therapy” imposed on doctors, usually as proposed by their own experts and supervised by their subordinates, illustrates the reification of psychiatric “expertise” over the safety of women patients
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".