MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194929843 · doi:10.3138/cjwl.33.1.03

To Protect and Responsibilize: The Discursive Explosion of Combining Youth Sexuality, Human Trafficking, and Online Spaces

2021· article· en· W3194929843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katrin Roots, Emily Lockhart

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtectionismVulnerability (computing)Human sexualityHuman traffickingCriminologyPolitical scienceSex traffickingSociologyGender studiesLawComputer securityBusinessInternational tradeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of social media and digital technologies has resulted in new protectionist laws, policies, and mandates aimed at regulating the sexual behaviour of women and girls in online spaces. These neoliberal responsiblization strategies are aimed at shaping good, young digital citizens and have become further amplified through increased concerns about domestic human trafficking and victim vulnerability. This protectionism, however, is not always reflected in courtroom proceedings, revealing a tension between the protection and responsiblization of victims of trafficking in Canada. Using R v Oliver-Machado (2013) as a case study, we examine the ways in which the defence counsel’s reliance on commonplace defence tactics used in sexual assault cases responsibilize the young complainants in an attempt to discredit their victimhood and reconstruct them as online sexual risk takers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0180.049
Scholarly communication0.0190.011
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et DroitSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207