MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1569342319

From Same-Sex to No Sex? Trends Towards Recognition of (Same-Sex) Relationships in Canada

2002· article· en· W1569342319 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Susan Boyd, Claire Young

Notice bibliographique

RevueSeattle journal for social justice · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOppressionLesbianPoliticsGender studiesCitizenshipSociologyInclusion (mineral)Space (punctuation)Political scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This article questions the terms on which groups that have traditionally been treated as "other" in modern societies (e.g. lesbians and gay men) are eventually included into the dominant system. It also reveals why the terms of this inclusion may result in the diminishing of the radical potential of the "othered" group in relation to social transformation. In turn, the dominant system may be reinforced even as it extends its citizenship to those who did not formerly belong. In this article, we explore this perplexing difficulty through a case study of the trends towards legal recognition of same-sex partnerships in Canada. We seek also to broaden the terms of the debate about recognition, which often focuses on marriage, particularly in the United States. The question arises whether there is space in the current political climate to discuss whether or not marriage was the key political goal of the lesbian/gay community. Many strong voices have been raised against the obviousness of the strategy of seeking inclusion within "the family" or marriage, and the implications of this strategy. Many of those voices have been lesbians and lesbian feminists. It is our view that this closing down of space for discussion of strategies that do not focus on marriage or spousal recognition as an "end" in itself is problematic. Drawing on critical literature on "the family," we work from a position that recognizes that marriage, and perhaps family law itself, has a history that is deeply interconnected with relations of oppression both within families and within society. We should all be familiar with, and keep in mind, the ways in which marriage has operated to reproduce women's dependency and inequality. Furthermore, in Canada, marriage has provided a mechanism for the imposition of patriarchal and oppressive norms on Aboriginal communities, with particular consequences for Aboriginal women. Even the family law reforms of the past three decades, which have sought to ameliorate women's status within marriage and their economic inequality at marriage breakdown, are arguably stop-gap measures that camouflage the continuing negative consequences of marriage for many women. Why, then, we ask, is not just spousal recognition, but also marriage, so clearly back on the political agenda for gays and lesbians, not only in the United States, where common law relationships have not received as much legal recognition, but also in Canada where they have? What political dilemmas does this development pose for critical thinkers and lesbians and gay men who are committed to social justice? Our goals in this article are threefold: 1. To describe the recent multi-fold Canadian developments, mainly in relation to recognition of same-sex partners as "spouses." These have taken a somewhat different trajectory than the American ones and may accordingly raise somewhat different questions. 2. To identify and question the terms on which these developments are occurring, and what tends to be left out of the discussion. In this part, we focus on the neo-liberal political climate of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries; this in turn leads to the privatizing and individualizing consequences of legal recognition of intimate relationships. 3. To play on our own ambivalence about spousal recognition strategies in order to open new avenues of thought.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,120
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,868

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0180,004
Communication savante0,0050,001
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,114
Tête enseignante GPT0,344
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations21
Publié2002
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSeattle journal for social justiceMême sujetMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesTravaux en français237 207