Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1980s, Canada witnessed a public outcry over child sexual abuse cases that were being reported in the media. Elected officials sought a remedy not through policy changes or other social mechanisms but rather through legal reforms. Amendments were made to the Criminal Code of Canada and sexual assault was redefined. The word “rape” was replaced with a continuum of sexual assault categories intended to reflect the full range of sexually intrusive behaviours. Most women’s groups, having fought for recognition of harm done to women and children, supported this legislation, though some questioned the approach Margaret Wright examines how the courts have dealt with child sexual abuse cases since then and what effect the “resort to law” has had. Analyzing the sentencing phase of these cases, she demonstrates that although the laws may have changed, their interpretation still depends on the social construction of children at the court level and on judges’ own understanding of what constitutes child sexual abuse. Judicial Decision Making in Child Sexual Abuse Cases is a rich and detailed study of the court process that will be welcomed by students and scholars of law and society, social work, criminal justice, and social policy
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".