MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410090284 · doi:10.26443/law.v69i4.1626

Legal Definitions of Intimate Images in the Age of Sexual Deepfakes and Generative AI

2024· article· en· W4410090284 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Law Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the evolution of Canadian criminal and civil responses to non-consensual synthetic intimate image creation and distribution. In recent years, the increasing accessibility of this type of technology, sometimes called deepfakes, has led to the proliferation of non-consensually created and distributed synthetic sexual images of both adults and minors. This is a form of image-based sexual abuse that law makers have sought to address through criminal child pornography laws and non-consensual distribution of intimate image provisions, as well as provincial civil intimate image legislation. Depending on the province a person resides in and the age of the person in the image, they may or may not have protection under existing laws. This article reviews the various language used to describe what is considered an intimate image, ranging from definitions seemingly limited to authentic intimate images to altered images and images that falsely present the person in a reasonably convincing manner.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it