Naming, testifying, denouncing ordinary rape : restorative justice as an epistemic justice mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While rape mythology constructs this crime as an extraordinary event caused by adeviant stranger, this thesis proposes a conceptualisation of 'ordinary rape' based onthree criteria: the relationship of proximity between the victim and the perpetrator,the everyday situation and the intimacy between the two individuals. Far fromtrivialising gender-based violence, the concept of ordinary rape reveals theheteronormative mechanisms at work in the (re)production of sexual violence, in thewake of the American feminist theories of 'date rape' in the 1980s. Based on theexperiential knowledge of five women gathered in semi-directive interviews, thisresearch analyses the epistemic injustices that these victims suffer when they seek todescribe, testify about and denounce their rape (hermeneutic, testimonial, agentialinjustices, silencing, etc.). The standpoint theory has made it possible to move awayfrom the penal meanings of what makes for justice and from behaviours determinedby the figure of the 'ideal victim'. The expectations of epistemic justice identified donot correspond to the logic and aims of the criminal justice system, whether it is amatter of victims naming the event according to the continuum of sexual violence,recounting the rape and its consequences without having their credibility assessed,being recognised as a victim without having to perform stereotyped norms, orconfronting the man who committed the rape to obtain answers to their questions.This thesis shows that the restorative justice paradigm is able to meet thesenormative expectations through the spaces for dialogue and unconditional listeningthat it offers. Based on fieldwork carried out in Quebec within an extra-judicialrestorative justice network, this research shows that the relational mediation observedenables victims to reclaim their epistemic agency, which was radically denied duringthe rape.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".