MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281617713 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v37i1.7285

The Legal Regulation of Sadomasochism and the So-Called “Rough Sex Defence”

2022· article· en· W4281617713 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elaine Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineSadomasochismContext (archaeology)Legal doctrineSame sexNarrativeCriminologySexual assaultLawPolitical scienceSexual violenceSociologyGender studiesHuman sexualityHistoryPoison controlSuicide preventionArtMedicineLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this article is on the judicial application of Canada’s sexual assault doctrine in the context of the so called ‘rough sex defence’. Canadian criminal courts have seen an increased prevalence of legal narratives about S/M in recent years. In particular, courts are increasingly confronted with individuals who defend themselves against allegations of sexual assault by claiming that the impugned acts constituted consensual S/M or ‘rough sex’. The analysis is aimed at illustrating the way in which courts may fail to properly apply legal doctrine because of a problematic approach to the S/M context in which allegations arose.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207