Bibliographic record
Abstract
La loi sur le « harcelement criminel », adoptee au Canada en 1993, a cree un nouveau crime visant particulierement, mais non exclusivement, a` prevenir la violence et a proteger les femmes en empechant leurs partenaires intimes ou autrefois intimes de les traquer impunement. Vu son orientation expresse vers cet objectif, la loi sur le harcelement criminel est particulierement bien conc ue pour mettre en lumiere les questions touchant le potentiel transformateur du droit et la fac on de mesurer le succes des initiatives de reforme du droit visant a reprimer la violence contre les femmes. Le present article analyse ces questions en envisageant plusieurs aspects du fonctionnement du droit, y compris, les dispositifs des tribunaux, la jurisprudence, les experiences des victimes et le discours judiciaire. On y repond a trois questions empiriques: comment le droit en est venu a representer le harcelement criminel ; comment le droit a construit les victimes et les contrevenants, et comment le droit trace la ligne de demarcation entre les comportements « normaux » et le harcelement criminel ? Les reponses a ces questions sont contradictoires. D'une part, les dispositifs des tribunaux et la jurisprudence portent a croire que le droit prend tres au serieux le harcelement criminel. Par contre, les experiences des victimes et une lecture attentive du discours judiciaire revelent un sexisme et un paternalisme latents en droit. Ces contradictions exposent la complexite de l'evaluation du succes des initiatives de reforme du droit et la difficulte d'analyser le potentiel transformateur du droit. L'article conclut qu'il nous faut regarder au-dela des dispositifs dans l'evaluation du droit et nous concentrer sur la maniere par laquelle le droit modifie le sens des phenomenes sociaux particuliers qu'il tente de reglementer. Abstract: Canada's statute, adopted in 1993, created a new crime aimed particularly, but not exclusively, at preventing violence and protecting women from being stalked by intimate or formerly intimate partners. As a result of its explicit orientation towards this goal, the anti-stalking law is particularly well suited to shedding light on questions surrounding the transformative potential of law and how we measure the success of law reform initiatives aimed at addressing violence against women. This article addresses these issues by looking at several dimensions of how the law is working, including court outcomes, case law, victims' experiences, and judicial discourse. It answers three empirical questions: how has the law come to represent stalking; how has the law constructed victims and offenders; and where does the law draw the line between normal behaviour and criminal harassment? The answers to these questions are contradictory. On the one hand, court outcomes and case law suggest that criminal harassment is being taken quite seriously. On the other hand, victims' experiences and a careful reading of judicial discourse reveal latent sexism and paternalism in the functioning of law. These contradictions expose the complexity of assessing the success of law reform initiatives and the difficulty with analyzing the transformative potential of law. The article concludes that we must look beyond outcomes when evaluating law and focus our attention on how the law makes meaning about the particular social phenomenon that it aims to address.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".