Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v Kirkpatrick, a pivotal case where the court grappled with answering the tired, yet age old, question: what is consent. Here, the accused surreptitiously removed a condom before sexual intercourse despite the sex being conditioned on his condom use. In its decision, the majority sidestepped a harmful precedent set in R. v Hutchinson, which placed condom use under the fraud provision of the newly adopted consent test from the same case. While the majority’s decision was welcome, I criticize the Court for not going far enough. The majority failed to reverse the Hutchinson precedent, failed to denounce the fraud provision as an illegitimate marker of consent, and failed to grapple with the realities of sex. The majority missed the notion that, when a person removes a condom during sex, they have changed the sexual act and thus require fresh consent, regardless of whether there was an agreement beforehand. While the majority’s decision is a step in the right direction in sexual assault cases, it was not the leap forward that women need to feel fully protected by the law.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.045 | 0.060 |
| 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".