Handicap cognitif et agression sexuelle : (Re)penser la capacité à consentir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le cadre de cet article, nous proposons d’étudier les discours et les pratiques juridiques qui participent à la construction de la capacité à consentir des personnes considérées en situation de handicap cognitif. L’étude de quatre jugements rendus par la Cour du Québec et par la Cour d’Appel de l’Ontario à propos d’accusations d’agression sexuelle sur des femmes considérées cisgenres et en situation de handicap cognitif permet d’explorer la façon dont le système de justice pénale canadien analyse la capacité à consentir en lien avec le handicap cognitif. Alors que ces quelques cas mettent en lumière l’importance accordée au discours biomédical dans la détermination de la capacité à consentir de ces personnes, nous proposons plutôt de fonder l’évaluation de cette capacité sur la compréhension de la notion de choix.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".