MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504395300

Re-Interpreting the Criminal Regulation of Sex Work in Light of Labaye

2008· article· en· W1504395300 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elaine Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoralityHarmCriminal codeSupreme courtMeaning (existential)LawHuman sexualityCriminal lawPolitical sciencePoliticsCode (set theory)CriminologyFocus (optics)Section (typography)SociologyPsychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada revised the meaning of indecency under the Criminal Code. This was achieved by removing from its definition any reliance on the community standard of tolerance test. In R. c. Labaye the Court reinforced the notion that the focus of laws regulating sexuality should not be based on sexual morality and moral harm to society but rather on political morality and actual harm to individuals. The reasoning in R. c. Labaye should change the way that courts understand the prostitution-related provisions in the Criminal Code. In particular, a proper application of its reasoning suggests that the conception of harm developed in R. c. Labaye should ultimately lead to a reduction of the detrimental impact on sex workers that many have suggested is directly caused by section 210 (the bawdy house law) and section 213 (the general communication provision) of the Criminal Code.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.046
Scholarly communication0.0160.007
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0260.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207