MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4207024271 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14723

The Juxtaposition of the Child as a Witness and a Victim: An Analysis of Legal Policy Affecting Young Witnesses in Canada

2021· dissertation· en· W4207024271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shakira Spence

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessAgency (philosophy)NarrativeCriminologyChild abuseChild protectionIdeologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSexual abuseChild sexual abuseLawSocial psychologySociologyPoliticsPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of a witness presents the complex responsibility to convince a court of the alleged criminally deviant actions committed against them.My research analyzes how this role is further complicated when a child is a sole witness, often in child sexual abuse cases.I explore how their agency and competency is addressed within the policies that facilitate their testimonies and how it manifests in practice.Pervasive discourses of developmental psychology theorized about a child's capability continuously captures the validation and implementation of protection-driven policies that reflect their differed capacity as witnesses compared to adults.Through a critical discourse and narrative analysis, this research challenges these dominant ideologies that invade interpretations of child's agency as victims and their ensuing capability as witnesses to testify.By drawing on newer sociologies of childhood and critical victimology, this thesis elucidates the confounds of protection-based policy and its hindrances on child witnesses' agency.Reforms, Reforms, Reforms: Do they Reconstitute or Reify the Norms?….…….………...128 Outcomes of a Victims' Testimony: Justice or Just Enough?…………………….……125Future Landscapes for the Courtroom: Balancing Participation and Protection ………...…… 131 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….………………….…139References………………………………………………………………………………...……149 Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………… 163 Appendix A: Question Types & Formulations ………………………………….…….

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0310.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→