Sexual History Evidence in Cases of Sexual Assault: A Critical Re-evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern legal regimes have narrowed the scope of the sexual history evidence that is admissible for purposes of proving or refuting claims of consent in cases of sexual assault. Yet, under most modern regimes, similar-sexual-history evidence is still admissible. The article critically analyses the epistemic foundations of these regimes by laying down two arguments. The main argument is that, in the vast majority of cases, similar sexual history is simply irrelevant to questions of consent. First, a simple statistical analysis demonstrates that, in the class of complainants on sexual assault, similar-sexual-history evidence is not indicative of consent. Bayesian insights are then introduced in order to reinforce the analysis and refine it by identifying one narrow exception. Next, it is demonstrated that, in light of the proposed analysis, current evidential regimes can only make sense under some highly controversial normative or factual assumptions. The secondary argument contends that some of the modern evidential regimes reflect the idea that claims of power inequalities between men and women should be at the heart of sexual assault law, rather than claims of consent or lack of it.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".