MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094812971 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340061

Revenge Pornography in Nigeria: A Call for Legal Response and Cyber-Censorship of Content by Internet Service Providers

2020· article· en· W3094812971 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ifeoma E. Nwafor, Ndubuisi Nwafor, Josiah Alozie

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPornographyHarmCensorshipStatuteLawThe InternetLiabilityEmbarrassmentPolitical scienceService providerCriminologyService (business)SociologyPsychologyBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Revenge pornography is the online distribution of sexually uncensored images or videos of another person without consent and to cause embarrassment or torment. Victims of revenge pornography suffer significant harm, including losing jobs and, in extreme cases, committing suicide. The public blames the victim for the role they played. Rather than victim-blaming, victims deserve a takedown order and criminal liability for uploaders of such images. This study adopts a doctrinal approach; it examines key statutes and their interpretation by Nigerian courts while juxtaposing it with the law and practice in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was undertaken as a case study because it has a developed jurisprudence which can provide lessons for Nigeria. This study found that the current state of laws in Nigeria is ill-equipped to tackle the menace of revenge pornography. The objective of this study is to offer insights on the prevalence of revenge pornography in Nigeria and suggest legal solutions to address this phenomenon. It canvasses for a non-consensual pornography provision that would criminalise the act of revenge pornography in Nigeria. It also makes a case for cyber-censorship of contents by internet service providers and the need for third-party liability.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207