Bibliographic record
Abstract
The civil marriage bill, or Bill C-38, has been hailed as a sign of Canada's progressiveness. Many mainstream gay and lesbian organizations pushed for it as a human right to increase lesbian and gay awareness, visibility, and acceptance. After decades of feminist theories warning (straight) women about the inevitable slavery and patriarchal structure of marriage, I am now being asked to embrace marriage as a new freedom and right for queer people and lesbians. Instead of creating legislation that would either remove some of the privileges accorded to married couples (thereby nullifying exclusive heterosexual access to the benefits ofmarriage) or legislation that would allow people to determine for ourselves our closest relationships (regardless of whether or not these relations are sexual) the Civil Marriage Act offers an opportunity to enter into a heterosexual institution. Instead of challenging our society's homophobia and regulation of sexuality, we have merely changed the status ofcertain members so that they, too, can have access to the privileges of straight culture. Marriage offers a way of expressing our similarity to straight culture. It is this positioning of similitude that is dangerous to queer and progressive politics alike. It is through a politics of difference that we can hope to come closer to a truly democratic and just society.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".