Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive historical account of the doctrine of recent complaint, an evidence law principle which expressly disadvantages sexual assault survivors if they do not disclose their assault at the first reasonable opportunity. Parliament did not abrogate this doctrine until 1983. Given that most sexual assault complainants are women, the gendered foundations of this doctrine (and its survival until the late 20th century) must be interrogated. Others have explored the doctrine’s abrogation, but this article’s original contributions include an analysis of primary sources that are largely unexamined by the literature (e.g., rape crisis centre reports, Parliamentary debates). This article shows that, despite considerable attempts from both Parliament and the SCC, many stereotypes and rape myths underpinning the doctrine of recent complaint are alive and well in Canadian courts. Most importantly, by providing a detailed overview of Parliamentary records leading up to 1983, this work highlights predictive concerns that were disregarded and have now come to fruition.
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 | 0.035 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".