Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite the increasing prominence of child pornography as a matter of concern in the social, political and legal spheres, the relative lack of scholarly monographs which examine the subject from a critical legal perspective still comes as something of a surprise. It should be acknowledged that this situation is improving: in the last few years, a much needed mapping and interrogation of this heavily contested and highly politicized subject has begun to emerge via notable works such as those of Akdeniz and Ost.1 Set against this background, the latest contribution to the coherent and sustained critique of the law and policy in this area from Gillespie—a leading commentator in the field—is to be welcomed. Gillespie’s broadly stated aim is to ‘examine existing literature on child pornography and consider what implications this has on the law’ (page 1). To achieve this aim, he firstly considers the definition of child pornography, including virtual variants. He them moves to the criminalization of child pornography, which includes a consideration of comparative jurisdictions, namely the USA, Canada and Australia and also sections on (i) children who themselves are involved with the creation of child pornography and (ii) sentencing policy. A final focus considers the question of policing, as contextualized by national and international law and policy. As one might hope for, the text makes frequent references to decided cases, legislation and key policy documents as well as containing some discussion of statistical evidence (or lack thereof). However, one of the book’s key strengths is that it does not restrict itself to a narrow legal commentary but also draws on a broad and genuinely interdisciplinary body of material in order to locate and contextualise its subject matter. The bibliography provides a rich source of further information and is rewarding for the attentive reader. The text as a whole aims to provide a versatile and nuanced view of child pornography law and policy which will benefit a broad and international range of readerships. In my view, this aim is achieved, and I could readily conceive that such a work would be of interest to those interested in criminology, sociology, social work, sex offending, psychology, policing and probation as well as the more obvious markets of legal practitioners, academics and students.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».