Categorizing Complainant-Accused Relationships in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse: The Distinctive Nature of Community Connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the categorization of relationships between child complainants and accused perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse (CSA). Researchers that have focused on complainant-accused relationships and other case variables, often combining two extrafamilial complainant-accused relationship categories: Relationships where the accused is connected to the child through their position in the community (i.e. community connections) and relationships where the non-relative accused is known to the child through a connection to the child's family (i.e. non-relative family connections). Using a database of 4,237 Canadian judicial decisions in cases of CSA, we reviewed a subset of 1,515 judicial decisions to explore differences between these two relationship categories. Compared to cases involving non-relative family connections, cases involving community connections had more male complainants, more multiple complainants, older complainants, higher frequencies of abuse, longer durations, and longer delays. We conclude that community and non-relative family connections are distinct relationships that should be separated for analyses in future research. Practical implications of recognizing the distinctiveness of non-relative family and community connection relationship categories in the context of abuse prevention and treatment are also discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 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".