THE CANADIAN AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT MODEL AS A GUIDE FOR RETHINKING CURRENT U.S. STATUTORY TREATMENT OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current U.S. statutory treatment of voluntary intoxication sexual assault is convoluted by the disconnect between definitions of consent, treatment of voluntary intoxication, and mens rea standards. Within this disconnect, the general public in many states are left largely unprotected when they become voluntarily intoxicated, such as through voluntary drinking. Being that voluntary intoxication is a highly socialized activity, and one that is prevalent across the nation, the need for reform that better protects against sexual assault is necessary. I argue that the Canadian affirmative consent model addresses these gaps in U.S. statutory law. The Canadian affirmative consent model provides a clear definition that recenters the conversation to consent, eliminates subjective evidence, sets a clear mens rea standard, provides protection across the intoxication spectrum and challenges dated sexual scripts. While changes to statutory law are most needed in politically conservative states, it may be more practical to first implement the standard in liberal states, where data can be collected to convince hesitant state legislators to pass the Canadian affirmative consent standard.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".