MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W171800800 · doi:10.25071/1718-4657.36737

FATHER OF THE BOTTOM: TOWARDS A CRITIQUE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

2008· article· en· W171800800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersections conference journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerLegislationGender studiesPolitical scienceInclusion (mineral)SociologyPoliticsIdentity (music)Law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On July 20th, 2005, the federal government of Canada passed Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, which changed the legal definition of marriage as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. This changed the federal legislation from defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman and broadened the legal definition to include same-sex couples. Canadians for Equal Marriage (CEM), one of the principal advocacy organizations, lauded the change in legislation as an important move towards equality for same-sex individuals. The organization’s advocacy work leading up to the vote in the House of Commons, along with their public media campaigns, reinforced the position that saw the inclusion of queer unions into federal definitions of marriage as an important moment for the queer rights movement. The discourse that surrounded this debate leading up to and after July 20th framed marriage as the cornerstone of queer rights and equality; yet, it lacked any sort of critique about the broader social and political implications for queer identity and the queer rights movement. Conflating marriage with equality, CEM’s discourse around gay marriage lacked any critique of how inclusion into state-legislated familial structures could impact broader discourses of queer identity. Instead, the majority of articles focused on how queer marriage was obligatory and called on all members of the queer community to embrace and organize politically around the issue of marriage. This discourse suggests the recognition of same sex unions is indicative of a broader social equality. However, it must be asked whether this assimilation into a heterosexual/heteronormative framework ensures real equality or merely the assimilation of queer identity through state-mediated kinship structures. Although gay marriage is a tool for enabling the inclusion of same-sex partners into benefits packages, tax breaks and other federally legislated benefits, the language used by gay marriage advocates problematically links concepts of equal rights to marriage without questioning or critiquing the concept of state-mediated kinship structures. Looking at the media campaign around this issue, and how it linked the attaining of rights to legalizing marriage it must be asked whether this would create real social acceptance, or whether the same-sex marriage debate is an in actuality just an attempt to normalize queer relationships into a larger heteronormative framework.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.305 · 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