The Age of Innocence: A Cautious Defense of Raising the Age of Consent in Canadian Sexual Assault Law
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, Canada raised the age of consent to sexual activity with an adult from 14 years of age to 16. Tis change was motivated, in part, by several high-profile cases of Internet "luring" of younger teenagers. Tis article considers whether raising the age of consent has had any benefits. It begins by discussing the history and development of age of consent laws in Canada. Te justification for a statutory age of consent has shifted from one based on the age at which a girl is deemed to be sexually available to one based on her capacity to give a valid consent to sexual activity. Te article examines the arguments made by groups who opposed raising the age of consent, but finds those arguments unconvincing. It concludes by cautiously supporting a higher age of consent. Te higher age limit captures exploitation of young people that was not subject to criminalization in the past. However, a formal age of consent may also normalize exploitative sexual relationships that contain a significant age disparity, where the younger party is only marginally over the age of consent. It is argued that age should be a factor in determining whether a relationship is exploitative even where both parties are over the age of consent. Te fact that both parties in a relationship are over the formal age of consent should not relieve the courts from the responsibility to consider whether there was coercion or an abuse of power or trust.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it