MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W567409246 · doi:10.5860/choice.40-0365

Sexual violence: policies, practices, and challenges in the United States and Canada

2002· article· en· W567409246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyLaw enforcementSexual violenceLawPoliticsSex offenseSociologyHistoryPoison controlPolitical scienceSuicide preventionSexual abuseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual Violence: Policies, Practices, and Challenges by James F. Hodgson and Debra S. Kelley The Measurement of Rape by Debra S. Kelley Biology, Sex, and the Debate over Chemical Castration by Craig T. Palmer, Randy Thornhill, and David N. DiBari A Critical Critique of the Cultures of Control: A Case Study of Cyber Rape by Livy A. Visano Sexual Assault Behind Bars: The Forgotten Victims by Charles Crawford Rape Law Reform by Frances P. Bernat Myths of Women and the Rights of Man: The Politics of Credibility in Canadian Rape Law by Margaret Denike Psychological Evidence in Sexual Assault Court Cases: The Use of Expert Testimony and Third Party Records by Trial Court Judges Giannetta Del Bove and Lana Stermac Re-Conceptualizing Sexual Assault from an Intractable Social Problem to a Manageable Process of Social Change by K. Edward Renner Law Enforcement's Response to Sexual Assault: A Comparative Study of Nine Counties in North Carolina by Vivian B. Lord and Gary Rassel Policing Sexual Violence: A Case Study of Jane Doe versus the Metropolitan Police by James F. Hodgson Assessing the Role of Sexual Assault Programs in their Communities by Elizabethann O'Sullivan Megan's Law in California: The CD-ROM and the Changing Nature of Crime Control by Suzette Cote Revisiting Megan's Law and Sex Offender Registration: Prevention or Problem by Robert E. Freeman-Longo

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicLaw, Rights, and FreedomsFrench-language works237,207