Bibliographic record
Abstract
In sexual assault cases, the motive of the complainant has traditionally been heavily scrutinized, based on sexist beliefs that women are likely to bring false complaints of rape based on motives of revenge, fantasy, and shame. Recent sexual assault cases have demonstrated the persistence of these beliefs even after the formal rules that validated them were abolished. At the same time, attempts by the Crown to show an absence of motive to lie have faced a high bar. Consistent with the general rule that motive is not required to prove mens rea, the accused’s motives have mostly escaped scrutiny. However, the recent high-profile case of R. v Barton shows the dangers of allowing the accused to rely on his alleged lack of motive to sexually assault the complainant. This article examines how both evidence of motive and absence of motive have been applied to the complainant and the accused in sexual assault cases. Caution is necessary when considering motive in relation to the complainant because of the direct connection with rape myths. Reliance on an accused’s absence of motive should also be discouraged as the reasons men rape cannot be reduced to a personal vendetta towards any one victim.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".