Defamation as a Sword: The Weaponization of Civil Liability against Sexual Assault Survivors in the Post-#MeToo Era
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
When the #MeToo movement gained popularity in 2017, the impact that it would have on how societies perceive sexual violence against women was unpredictable. In the midst of the female empowerment and support that the hashtag cultivated, a legal phenomenon was brewing in the form of retaliatory defamation lawsuits from men accused in this modern wave of sexual assault allegations. This analysis features a step-by-step breakdown of the life of a defamation lawsuit filed against a sexual assault survivor making an online sexual assault disclosure and explores this increasingly popular intimidation tactic. In doing so, I illustrate the way in which Canadian defamation law, though well suited to its predetermined purpose, is wholly inappropriate when applied to a #MeToo context, where it essentially becomes used to litigate sexual assault claims in a manner that disadvantages survivors and inadvertently reinforces rape myths in the legal analysis.
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 | 0.009 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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